Show Material

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it returns a JSON object and the HTTP endpoint. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise with 4 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, return type, required params, and API reference. No unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, usage, required parameters, and API endpoint. However, it does not describe what fields are in the returned JSON object (no output schema), and optional pagination parameters are not mentioned. Adequate but not complete for a complex tool.

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 already explains each parameter. The description only restates that 'id' and 'project_id' are required, adding no new meaning. Therefore, it meets the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states that the tool returns detailed information about a specific Material by its identifier, which is the core purpose. However, it mentions 'Field Productivity records' which slightly conflicts with the tool name 'Material', but it's consistent with the schema and endpoint.

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 description tells when to use the tool (to fetch full details of a specific record) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools like 'list_materials'. The implied usage is clear, but explicit exclusions or alternatives are missing.

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