list_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious matching semantics - that 'search' matches a substring of either the name or the category. It does not state what an empty search returns (presumably the full catalog), which is the one behavioral detail an agent would want.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The capability and its filter semantics come first, and the downstream usage instruction comes last, which is the correct front-loading order for a lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and for a single optional-string read tool the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the default/empty-search behavior, which matters because the parameter is not required.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: 'search' filters on part of the name or category, with concrete examples ('6061', 'steel', 'abs'). It omits that the parameter defaults to empty and what that means, and does not mention case sensitivity.

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 states the resource (materials in the SolidWorks material databases) and the scoping operation (filtered by 'search'), which an agent can distinguish from the mutating sibling set_material. It is specific enough to act on, though it never uses a list/retrieve verb of its own, relying on the tool name for that.

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?

It gives clear routing in one clause: 'Use the exact name with set_material', which tells the agent this is the discovery step preceding set_material and that the returned name must be reused verbatim. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. when the material name is already known), so it stops short of a 5.

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