plasticity_match_printed_thread_qualification

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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the engagement eligibility rule and the tie-breaking behavior that conflicting qualified clearances return ambiguous rather than being silently resolved. That is a non-obvious matching semantic an agent must know.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the eligibility rules. Slightly dense 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 read-only matching tool with no output schema and deeply nested required parameters, the description explains eligibility and the ambiguous outcome but does not indicate what a successful match returns or which fields identify it. Adequate but leaves the return contract inferred.

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 carries the burden, and it only loosely covers three of four parameters ('process', 'thread', 'requested engagement'). fitClass and the contents of the nested process/thread objects (printerId, materialId, slicingProfileId, clearanceBasis, handedness, etc.) are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Find a physical rounded-print-v1 thread-fit qualification') scoped to an exact process and thread definition. This distinguishes it semantically from the 'record' and 'list' printed-thread siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 the eligibility rule (tested engagement must be at least the requested engagement), which is effectively a when-to-match condition, but it never says when to prefer this over plasticity_list_printed_thread_qualifications or when to record a new one instead. 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.