list_job_input_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The tier tag "readonly-owner" is embedded in the description, which helps signal authorization requirements. However, it doesn't describe what happens for a job with no input materials (empty list vs error), pagination behavior, or whether the response includes quantities/prices. For a read-only list operation, this is acceptable but thin.

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 sentences, each earning its place — the first states the purpose, the second provides the endpoint mapping and tier. No wasted words. Could optionally add usage guidance, but what's present is tight.

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?

This is a simple filtered-list tool with a single parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and endpoint clearly. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is nearly adequate. However, the tier "readonly-owner" implies ownership scoping that isn't explained, and it doesn't mention what fields or material details are returned. Acceptable for a simple tool but could note the return includes quantities/prices per material.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documentation. There's only one parameter (job_id), and although the description mentions "on a job", it doesn't explicitly explain that job_id is the identifier of the job whose materials are being listed. With a single obvious parameter, the baseline is somewhat lower, but the description doesn't explicitly map the parameter.

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 "List materials consumed on a job" with a specific verb (List), resource (materials), and scope (on a job). It maps to a clear endpoint. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like list_materials (which lists all materials globally) — although the job-scoping is implied through the name. The endpoint mapping adds clarity.

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 tier annotation "readonly-owner" and endpoint mapping provide implicit usage context, but there's no explicit statement about when to use this vs list_materials or list_job_line_items. "Consumed on a job" implies it requires an existing job_id, but no alternative tool is explicitly named or excluded.

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