plasticity_read_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy_test

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the record is immutable and the Mode-I/II partition is 'server-recomputed exploratory' rather than raw input. That characterization of provenance and derived-vs-measured data goes beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a scoping disclaimer. No filler, though the field enumeration is dense and slightly long.

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 enumerates the returned content (geometry, criterion, source evidence, moduli, partition), which is what an agent needs to know what it will get. The only gap is the untouched recordId parameter.

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 the single recordId parameter is never mentioned in the description beyond the generic 'read one ... record'. The schema pattern (64-hex) is not explained, and the description gives no hint about format or where IDs are obtained. With one undocumented param it should compensate but does not.

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 (Read) and resource (one immutable physical MMB energy record), then enumerates the content (geometry, initiation criterion/force, material-axis mapping, moduli, Mode-I/II partition). It implicitly separates itself from the compute/import siblings, though it does not name them directly.

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?

Usage is implied — a single-record fetch by recordId — and the closing 'It is not a traction-separation law or cohesive-FEA input' sets a boundary. But it never says when to prefer this over list_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy_tests, match_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy_test, or calculate_mmb_mode_i_ii_energy, nor where the recordId comes from.

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