plasticity_match_dcb_mode_i_energy_test

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

Annotations already establish read-only, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the three possible outcomes (no-match, matched, ambiguous) and warning that a match is not a calibration or design allowable — meaningful interpretive context for downstream use.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource and followed by the outcome/limitation caveat. No filler, though the first sentence is heavily loaded with qualifiers.

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, the description usefully summarizes the return states, and it covers the top-level inputs. The nested object's fields and the exactness semantics for orientation/infill/temperatures are not detailed, which is a minor gap for a 3-param, deeply nested matcher.

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 load; it names all three top-level parameters (material printer/profile/process, global interface normal, test-protocol SHA-256) and stresses exact single-material matching. It does not document the seven nested materialProcess fields, which are self-naming but unlabeled.

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 (Find) and resource (recorded physical DCB Mode-I energy tests) and pins the scope to an exact single-material printer/profile/process plus interface normal and protocol hash. This clearly separates it from the list_/read_/record_ DCB siblings and from the MMB and ENF matchers.

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 'only for an exact ... match' phrasing tells the agent this is an exact-match lookup rather than a fuzzy search, and the closing sentence provides a when-not guard ('a match is not a cohesive FEA calibration or design allowable'). It never explicitly names an alternative tool, 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.