check_chemical_resistance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely important trait that structured data does not: results are tier-gated, so lower tiers return warnings only rather than verdicts. It omits auth prerequisites beyond tier, citation/liability caveats for safety-critical cases, and what the response contains.

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 lead question is well front-loaded, but two of the three sentences are a pricing ladder and an upgrade URL rather than tool behavior. The tier breakdown is partly useful, partly upsell, and could be compressed to one line.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves key gaps: accepted value formats, what a 'warning' versus a 'verdict' actually looks like in the response, and whether low-tier calls still return something usable. Only the tier hierarchy is covered.

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 only 33% (only show_math is documented), and the description adds nothing about the two required parameters. It never says whether material expects a family name, a trade name, or a printer profile, and gives no reagent naming conventions (generic solvent vs brand), which is the most likely source of failed calls.

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 opening line states the exact question the tool answers (material + reagent -> chemical compatibility) with a concrete verb-ish framing that an agent can map to the call. It is distinguishable from prose-adjacent siblings like get_material_warnings or check_material_environment, though the tier/pricing sentences dilute the signal.

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?

Invocation is implied by 'Will a printed <material> part survive <reagent>?', but it never says when to prefer this over compare_material_properties, answer_material_question, or get_material_warnings. The only routing guidance is about pricing tiers, not about alternative tools.

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