share_get_material

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's field enumeration adds useful context about what it returns but doesn't disclose access requirements (for example, whether a material still needs purchasing or points), nor any error behavior for invalid IDs. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is right.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The field list is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but it is short enough to remain efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: one integer parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. Listing the returned fields is enough for an agent to know what it gets. The only shortfall is the missing routing guidance to sibling list and search tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter, material_id, and the schema description coverage is 100%, with '平台对象 ID，正整数' already explaining it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for this parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (读取) and resource (资料) and enumerates the fields returned — details, description, file size, point price, uploader, redemption count, like status, and page link. This clearly separates it from list-style siblings such as share_search_materials or share_list_course_materials, which return many materials. It does not, however, name a sibling it is explicitly not, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: it reads the detail of a single material, so it comes after a search/list step. But the description never says when to call this versus share_search_materials, share_get_course_materials, or share_list_course_materials, and it gives no prerequisite about where material_id comes from.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.