Material Properties (Typical Values)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the data basis (typical handbook values, every value tagged basis: typical), the unit system (SI), the exact returned field set, and the semantic of a miss (the reference does not hold it, not that the material does not exist). That last point preempts the most likely misreading of an empty result.

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?

Front-loads purpose and examples before caveats, and each sentence carries content, including the useful mismatch-semantics note. It runs slightly long and the returned-field list partially duplicates the output schema, but nothing is filler.

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?

Covers the decisions an agent must make for a two-parameter reference lookup: what it returns, in what units, how trustworthy the numbers are, and what an empty result means. The existence of an output schema means the return shape needn't be re-explained, and the description does not over-claim by doing so.

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 100% and the `property` enum is fully self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms that lookup is by designation and hints that `property` is a narrowing control ("stays small" is already in the schema), but adds no syntax, normalization, or alias guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("look up indicative material properties") with concrete example designations (6061-T6, 304, Ti-6Al-4V) and an enumeration of the returned quantities. It reads as a single-material reference lookup, which distinguishes it from siblings like material_coverage (coverage listing) and it_grade (grade selection).

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?

Explicitly states the appropriate uses (comparing materials, estimating mass, supplying an indicative modulus to an analysis) and the exclusion (do not derive strength margins from these values; obtain an allowable from a qualified source). It does not name a sibling alternative for the unmatched-designation case, where material_coverage would presumably be the right fallback, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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