femm_material_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the full contents of the returned record, the effect of include_curve, and notably the miss behavior (returns suggestions and a 4.2->5 rename). It omits any statement about safety/permissions, but as a read operation that gap is minor.

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, front-loaded sentences that lead with what is returned and then cover the optional curve and miss handling. The parenthetical field lists are long but each element is informative, so little is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description usefully documents the return contents and the miss case, which is exactly what is missing elsewhere. The uncovered physics parameter and absence of any read-only reassurance are the remaining gaps for a 3-param retrieval 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains include_curve ('adds the B-H (or T-k) points') and the meaning of name is self-evident, but the physics parameter and its default are never addressed, leaving one meaningful parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Full library record of one material') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like femm_material_search or femm_material_load, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 'get one material' framing implies the retrieval use case, and the include_curve hint gives some conditional guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the obvious alternative femm_material_search when the exact name is unknown.

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