plasticity_match_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy_test

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

Annotations establish readOnly/openWorld=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the three possible outcome states (no-match, matched, ambiguous) and the exactness requirement. It doesn't state whether ambiguous results need disambiguation or how large the record pool is, but the return-state disclosure is more than annotations provide.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and matching keys before the disqualifying clause. Domain terminology (MMB, SHA-256, cohesive-law) makes it heavy but every clause carries information.

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 4-required-param matcher with no output schema, the description covers the matching contract, the outcome states and the misuse boundary. The gap is the nested materialProcess sub-fields, which the agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 0% and the materialProcess parameter is a nested object with seven required sub-fields. The description names the four top-level matching keys (process, normal, shear direction, protocol SHA-256), which maps them to their semantic roles, but says nothing about the nested fields like profileHash, orientationDeg or infill. Partial compensation only.

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?

Names a specific verb (find/match) and resource (caller-confirmed physical MMB initiation-energy records), and constrains it to an exact single-material process, interface normal, shear direction and protocol hash. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_, read_, record_ and calculate_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to 'exact single-material process' matching and closes with what this is NOT (traction-separation curve, cohesive-law calibration, design allowable), which steers agents away from misusing it as an analysis tool. It does not name a specific sibling alternative for looser lookups, so not a full 5.

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