femm_material_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses fuzzy matching behavior, the FEMM 4.2-to-5 name mapping with ranking priority, and the returned fields (name, folder, mu_r, Hc, sigma, nonlinear?). It omits any statement about result capping/limit behavior or read-only guarantees, keeping it from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by examples, mapping rules, enum values, and edge-case behavior. It is information-dense with little waste, though the example list is somewhat 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 explains return values explicitly and covers the main usage modes (query, folder listing, family index). An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the limit parameter semantics and explicit alternative-tool routing are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: query gets usage examples, folder gets the empty-query-plus-folder behavior, and physics gets its enum values spelled out. The `limit` parameter is left unexplained, a modest gap.

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 (fuzzy search) and resource (FEMM 5 material library), and backs it with concrete examples ('M-19', 'N42', 'silicon iron'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling material tools like femm_material_get, femm_material_load, and femm_material_add.

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 '(no engine needed)' note and the empty-query behaviors give clear usage context, implicitly contrasting with session-bound material tools. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is not a full 5.

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