material_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the main lookup behavior and adds a specific behavioral detail (empty input returns the full table), but it does not say how unknown or invalid toepassing values are handled or whether the result is filtered versus scored.

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 one clear purpose line followed by a compact Args block. It has no filler and front-loads the main purpose before parameter details.

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 single-optional-parameter material guide with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics. It does not mention the sibling tools, but the tool is simple enough that the selection context is clear from the purpose and examples.

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?

The input schema provides only a name and default with no description, so the description must compensate. It defines toepassing as the part's purpose, lists six concrete example values, and explains that leaving it blank returns the full table, which is sufficient semantic guidance for a single optional parameter.

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 opens with a concrete imperative ('Kies') naming the resource ('het juiste 3D-printmateriaal') and the selection criterion ('voor een toepassing'). Examples of application types make the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguish it from sibling tools focused on printer fit and print estimation.

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 gives concrete example applications and explicitly states the empty-input behavior, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with fits_on_printer or print_estimate, nor state when not to use it.

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