search_material_attr

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the total record count (34,630), local CSV source, and the default behavior when no filter is given. This goes beyond a minimal statement, offering useful context for an agent deciding how to call it and how many results to expect.

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 tight and front-loaded: it states the purpose and scale first, then the search keys, the returned content, and the filter recommendation. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 search tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what data it accesses, how to narrow results, and default behavior. It omits exact output fields, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names the filter parameters (material_no, g2b_code, attr_code) and implies they are optional filters, and explains the limit parameter's default behavior. However, it does not specify parameter format, exact vs. partial matching, or how multiple filters combine, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states it queries material attribute information, specifying search keys (material no, G2B code, attribute code) and the type of data returned (attribute values like spec, material, dimension). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling material tools (e.g., search_material_group, search_material_equipment), but the resource is 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?

Provides a clear recommendation to use at least one filter and describes behavior when none are specified (returns first limit records). However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusion criteria, so the guidance is limited to this tool's own invocation.

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