plasticity_list_material_coupon_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: records are immutable and caller-attested, and there is no output schema, so naming the returned fields (source evidence, process identity, composedFromRecordIds) is genuinely useful. Pagination/result-size behavior is not addressed.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The disambiguating second sentence earns its place by staking out the domain boundary.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it conveys what is listed, what fields come back, and what domain it belongs to. It could be fuller on result volume or how to follow up with match/combine siblings, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly adds none.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (immutable caller-attested material coupon records), and enumerates the returned content (source evidence, exact process identity, composedFromRecordIds). The second sentence explicitly distinguishes this physical-test registry from slicer material names/densities/temperatures, so an agent can tell it apart from the appearance-material tools.

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 implies usage by framing this as the registry of recorded coupon data, and it excludes a related but different domain (slicer materials). However, it never states when to call this versus sibling tools like plasticity_match_material_coupon_data, plasticity_combine_material_coupon_data, or plasticity_list_material_interface_tests, leaving routing to inference.

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