List material library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description usefully discloses that these are built-in read-only presets with fixed property fields, but adds nothing about result ordering or whether a model/project must be open. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is unexplained noise.

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?

The first sentence is well-formed, front-loaded and appropriate in length. The appended bracketed rule reference is unexplained, ungrammatical in context, and actively hurts readability without adding actionable guidance for this tool.

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 simple two-optional-param read-only lister with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the filter dimensions, and the property fields each preset carries. Only the missing relationship to the add_*_from_library consumers and the confusing rule tag keep it from being fully complete.

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 100% and both params are documented there in richer detail (substring match on id/Korean/English name; full category enumeration). The description only parrots 'filtered by category or search text', adding no syntax or matching nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List built-in material presets' with the preset payload enumerated (density/conductivity/specific heat/pyrolysis), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly differentiates from add_material_from_library by saying the presets are 'available to add to the model', but never names that sibling 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?

The only qualifier is 'optionally filtered by category or search text', which restates the parameters rather than telling the agent when to reach for this tool. There is no mention of the natural alternative (add_material_from_library / add_surface_from_library) or when not to browse, so usage is left entirely to inference.

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