search_material_group

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the data source (local CSV, 999 items), partial match search behavior, and the active_only filter effect. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or limit semantics, which are important for a search tool. This is a moderate gap given the lack of annotations.

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 and efficient, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and data source, then detail search criteria. There is no redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations, the description provides essential calling details (query and active_only) and data source context. However, it omits the limit parameter's effect and any expected return structure, which leaves some uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.

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 explains the 'query' parameter (partial match on code or name) and 'active_only' (returns only active codes), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. This leaves one of three parameters undocumented, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 the action (search) and resource (material group codes), specifies that it searches by group code or name, and provides examples. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_material_attr and search_material_equipment by its focus on material group codes, making the purpose 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?

The description explains how to use the tool (partial match on code or name, active_only flag) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are given, leaving the selection to inference based on the resource name.

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