Selects the applicable mill cert type for a steel grade and use case, then lists the certificate fields to verify.
Which mill cert type applies for a grade + use case (e.g. EH36 shipbuilding), and what fields to check on the cert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grade | Yes | ||
| use_case | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates the tool is an informational guide producing a certificate type and fields to check, implying a non-mutating lookup. It does not disclose limitations, source standards, or output details beyond that high-level outcome.
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 sentence, with the core question front-loaded and a concrete example embedded. Every clause contributes: the inputs, the decision being made, and the output. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 two-parameter lookup, this is minimally complete: it states inputs, the decision, and the returned guidance. However, with no output schema and no annotation safety profile, it would benefit from a bit more detail about what exact fields are returned and how it relates to grade_lookup and substitution_check.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that grade and use_case are the inputs determining the result and gives EH36 + shipbuilding as a concrete example. It does not enumerate accepted formats or possible use cases, but the parameter names plus example are enough for basic usage.
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 purpose: determining which mill cert type applies for a grade and use case, plus which fields to inspect on the cert. The EH36 shipbuilding example makes the query concrete. It is implicitly distinct from the sibling tools grade_lookup and substitution_check because it centers on certificate type selection, though it never names them explicitly.
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 wording implies usage: call this when you have a grade and use case and need the applicable certificate type and fields to check. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus grade_lookup or substitution_check, and no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.