Material Elastic Properties

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds specifics on returned properties (bulk modulus, shear modulus, etc.) and mentions full 6x6 elastic tensor format. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose and specific properties. Second sentence provides usage context. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (implied) and clear annotations, the description covers all needed details: what the tool does, what parameter is required, and when to use it. Complete for a single-parameter read-only 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 has 100% coverage with a description for material_id that already lists returned properties. The main description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with clear verb 'Get', lists specific properties (bulk modulus, shear modulus, etc.), and explicitly states purpose for 'structural materials screening and mechanical simulations'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's from Materials Project and focusing on elastic properties.

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?

Description clearly states when to use ('Essential for structural materials screening and mechanical simulations'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative sibling tools. Context is clear enough for typical use cases.

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