list_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 of disclosure. It mentions the endpoint mapping (GET /materials) and tier tag '[tier: readonly-owner]', which implies read-only access but doesn't explicitly state the tool is non-destructive, whether pagination defaults exist, or what the return structure looks like. For a read/list tool with zero annotation coverage, moderate disclosure exists but significant gaps remain.

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, no filler. The endpoint mapping and tier tag are efficiently included. Every sentence earns its place, though the tier tag format is cryptic.

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 simple 4-param list operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and endpoint, plus category filtering. Gaps: no pagination behavior described, no search semantics for q, no disclosure of what fields are returned. Given the tool's relative simplicity, this is adequate but could add a bit more on parameter behavior.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for 4 undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'category' which maps to category_id, but the 'q' (search), 'page', and 'page_size' parameters are not explained in the description at all. However, page/page_size are conventional pagination params an agent can infer from naming, and q is a common search token. Some compensation but not complete for all 4 parameters.

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 price book materials, optionally filtered by category' with a clear verb+resource. It maps to GET /materials. It distinguishes from siblings like list_material_categories and list_price_book_services, though not explicitly naming them. The 'optionally filtered by category' adds useful scoping.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. The '[tier: readonly-owner]' tag hints at access requirements but not usage context. The tool identity implies it's the go-to for listing materials, but there's no guidance on when to use it versus list_price_book_services or list_material_categories.

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