get_material_design_profile

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of transparency. It describes the tool as a read-only lookup returning public fields, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a parameter documentation line. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently uses each sentence to convey key information without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it returns, and a pointer to a sibling tool for advanced needs. It could mention potential error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to invoke this 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?

The schema has only a single required parameter 'material' without a description, but the tool description provides examples ('pla', 'petg') to clarify the expected format. This adds value beyond the schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool performs a 'compatibility lookup for a material's public design floor', uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning that it returns the same fields as `get_material_properties` and directing deeper queries to `answer_material_question`.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for basic compatibility lookup) and explicitly suggests `answer_material_question` for deeper engineering guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the provided guidance is sufficient for most agents.

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