Get SAS material metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context by excluding progress, answers, submissions and activity tracking, but the phrasing 'are requested' is ambiguous and it says nothing about auth requirements or failure modes for unknown IDs.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose stated first and the scope caveat second; nothing is padded. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description only needs to cover purpose and prerequisite, which it does. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only explicit alternative routing and behavior on invalid IDs.

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 and only one parameter, the schema already carries the semantics (pattern, source of the ID). The description corroborates the source ('discovered by sas_search_materials') but adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get metadata for a published material) and explicitly ties it to the sibling sas_search_materials, so an agent can tell it apart from the search/list tools without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'previously discovered by sas_search_materials' establishes a clear prerequisite chain: this is a follow-up call made after a search yields an ID. It does not name alternatives for retrieving content (e.g., sas_download_resource) or state when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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