material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned material data (including whether auto-decomposition occurs), but says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for unknown names, or the meaning of the 'format' output mode.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates returned attributes with no filler. It is suitably sized, though the heavily compacted list-of-fields style borders on opaque.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. However it leaves the format parameter, error handling, and usage context entirely unspecified for a two-parameter lookup.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The required 'name' is inferable from the tool name, but the 'format' parameter (default 'text') and its possible values are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 lists exactly what the tool resolves about a material: chemical formula, components, flags, form, and auto-decomposition status with its recipe. This is a specific resource with concrete returned attributes, but it omits an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from the adjacent 'recipe' sibling, which also covers recipes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like recipe, producers, or consumers, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the field list.

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