plasticity_match_enf_mode_ii_energy_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the outcome space ('no-match, matched or ambiguous evidence') and an explicit scope exclusion against traction-separation/cohesive calibration. It stops short of explaining what 'ambiguous' means or how results are ranked.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and match scope, then outcomes, then the disambiguation clause. Every sentence earns its place; slightly dense with no punctuation affordance for the constraint list, but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the result space (no-match/matched/ambiguous), which is the key completeness gap it needs to fill. With annotations covering safety and the description covering scope, exclusions and outcomes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though richer guidance on the ambiguous case and the nested material fields would complete it.

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 one parameter is a nested materialProcess object, so the description carries the burden. It does map each parameter to a concept (material print process, interface normal, in-plane shear direction, test-protocol SHA-256), which is useful, but it adds no format, unit, hashing or normalization detail, so it only partially compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find recorded physical ENF Mode-II initiation-energy tests') and pins down the exact-match scope across four dimensions (material print process, interface normal, shear direction, protocol hash). It also names what it is not ('not a traction-separation curve or cohesive FEA calibration'), which separates it from cohesion/FEA siblings.

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 conveys the matching precondition (exact single-material print process plus hashes), which implies when this tool applies, but it never names an alternative such as plasticity_list_enf_mode_ii_energy_tests for browsing or plasticity_calculate_enf_mode_ii_energy for derived values. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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