get_material_success_rates

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount by indicating the shape of what is returned (per-material success/fail rates), but says nothing about aggregation window, minimum sample size, or how materials with no prints are reported. Adequate but thin against a lower bar set by 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?

One short sentence with the scope qualifier ('for a printer') front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description conveys both the subject (a printer) and the return content (per-material success/fail rates), which is the essential information. Missing are the time window and empty-data behavior, which an agent might want before calling on a fresh printer.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single printer_id parameter is already documented as 'The printer identifier.' The description adds no further meaning such as whether the id is a serial, name, or cloud id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('per-material success/fail breakdown for a printer'), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate from near-neighbors such as failure_history, get_material_warnings or printer_stats, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like printer_stats or failure_history, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that historical print outcomes must exist for the printer). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose sentence.

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