search_material_equipment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful non-obvious context: the dataset has 24,258 records and is sourced from a local CSV, implying a static local dataset. It does not describe matching semantics or pagination, but for a read-only lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the data-source/record-count note adds relevant context without bloating the text.

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 three-parameter tool with no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description defines the core lookup intent well. However, it leaves operational details unspecified, such as behavior when both filters are empty, whether the parameters can be combined, and how limit is applied. These gaps matter because there are no schema descriptions or annotations to fill them.

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. It clearly explains the meaning and role of material_no and equipment by defining the forward and reverse lookup directions. However, it does not describe the limit parameter or explain whether material_no and equipment can be combined or are mutually exclusive.

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 clearly states a specific operation: searching material-target equipment records, with two explicit directions—find equipment codes for a material number, or reverse-search the material for an equipment code. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from generic sibling lookup tools.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to map a material number to equipment codes or an equipment code to a material. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the highest level of guidance.

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