Material Get

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and not open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact return keys, SI quantity strings, the fact that structural keys are FEM-card-compatible, and the miss behavior with {ok:false, reason} and did_you_mean suggestions. This goes well beyond the annotation-only safety signal.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the parameter example, the return field list, the compatibility note, and the miss behavior. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to call it, what to expect in the result, how to handle misses, and how the output integrates with fem_set_material. There is no missing prerequisite or edge-case ambiguity.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the parameter means a material name and gives a real-world example ('AL6061-T6'), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to pass. It doesn't specify case sensitivity or exact-match rules, but for a simple string that's acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Look up' and resource 'material by name', includes a concrete example ('AL6061-T6'), and lists the returned fields. It differentiates itself from siblings like material_list and material_select by stating it returns a full property card and names the compatible downstream tool fem_set_material, making its role unambiguous.

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?

It clearly implies the use case: when you need a material's full property set, especially to feed directly into fem_set_material. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose it over material_list/material_select in a lookup scenario.

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