recommend_static_dissipative_material

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does not. It does disclose that answers are tier-gated (Free = safety basics only, deeper grade/sourcing and audit support require paid tiers), which is a genuine behavioral trait an agent needs. Beyond that it says nothing about read-only nature, side effects, or response shape, and the tier text reads as marketing rather than operational detail.

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 sentence is crisp and front-loaded and the tier line does carry functional information about answer depth. However the pricing URL and tier upsell consume roughly half the text for what is essentially one useful fact (answers are gated by plan).

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description never indicates what a recommendation looks like, whether it returns ranked candidates or a yes/no on the supplied material, or how the four inputs combine. For a four-parameter advisory tool with zero structured support, that is a significant gap.

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 nominally 75%, but the property descriptions are only 'Default: ""', so the schema conveys little semantics. The description's 'the one you named fits' mildly signals that `material` is optional input for the validation mode, but printer_id, application and max_service_temp_c get no explanation anywhere.

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 concrete verb+resource: pick a static-dissipative material for a job, or check whether a named one fits. That distinguishes it from generic siblings like recommend_material or get_material_properties, though the dual mode (recommend vs. validate) is only implied by a dash clause rather than spelled out.

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?

'or whether the one you named fits' hints at a second invocation mode (pass an existing material), which is real usage guidance inferred from the sentence. But it never says when to choose this over the many neighbouring material tools (recommend_material, get_best_material_substitute, check_material_match, recommend_design_material), nor any prerequisites.

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