Material options by project type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the output being IDs for get_estimate, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, ordering, or availability assumptions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose with concrete examples, and the second gives the essential integration hint. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with a full enum, rich read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It even explains how the results should be used downstream, which reduces ambiguity about the return value's role.

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 100% and the single projectType parameter already has an enum plus a clear description. The tool description lists example material categories but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get available material choices for a project type,' and then gives concrete examples that immediately clarify scope. It also connects the output to get_estimate, further distinguishing this from generic catalog or reference tools. Even without naming sibling tools, the project-type framing is a clear differentiator.

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?

The description clearly states the downstream context: 'Use the returned IDs in the project fields of get_estimate,' which tells an agent when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_material_catalog or state exclusions, so it stops short of the strongest usage guidance.

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