MapleV Tesla Collision Parts

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

The description discloses output content (delivery tiers, ETA, cut-off time, CAD fee), states that fees are customer-facing, and explains the free-delivery threshold behavior. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by describing what the read returns and how the free-tier logic works. The province parameter description also adds behavioral context about non-BC orders being quoted as freight.

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 sentences plus an example, all front-loaded with the key behavior. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the inputs and outputs, the second gives a concrete use case, and the fee/threshold note is relevant caller guidance. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (delivery tiers with ETA, cut-off, fee) and the main input constraint (city in BC, optionally province). The free-delivery threshold and customer-facing fee note complete the essential caller knowledge. Nothing critical is missing for a 3-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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a small but meaningful layer by mentioning the free-delivery threshold tied to orderSubtotalCAD and clarifying the BC scope for city. This reinforces the schema's meaning without over-duplicating it.

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 specific action: given a delivery city, return MapleV's available delivery tiers with ETA, cut-off time, and CAD fee. It also provides a concrete example question, which removes ambiguity. The sibling tools are all about parts and categories, so this tool's delivery-focused purpose is distinctly identifiable.

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 usage context through the example question and by specifying BC as the relevant geography. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but none of the sibling tools serve a similar delivery-options purpose, so no exclusion is necessary. The province parameter's note about non-BC being freight further clarifies the edge case.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate side-effect behavior. It adds useful transparency about what is returned, including grade, fitment, and CAD list price, which helps set expectations.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. It leads with the tool's main purpose and immediately follows with parameter guidance and output expectations.

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 simple single-parameter interface and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming the lookup keys and summarizing the returned details. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single required parameter, and the description enriches it with concrete examples like 'P-001' and '1519965-SC-B'. This fully clarifies acceptable identifier formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a single MapleV part'), and clarifies that lookup can be by catalog ID or Tesla OE part number. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like search_parts and list_categories.

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 implies the tool should be used when a specific known identifier is available, as opposed to broader search or category listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'single part' and identifier-based lookup language provides clear contextual guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false implies the result is a complete, stable set. The description adds that SKU counts per category are included, which is useful but does not cover return format, pagination, or ordering. This meets the baseline given the 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?

One sentence, direct, and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds meaning; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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, zero-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and completeness, the description fully specifies what will be returned (categories and SKU counts). No further detail about pagination or format is necessary given openWorldHint=false and the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% schema coverage), so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a no-argument list operation.

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 specifies a clear action ('List'), a precise resource ('all part categories in the MapleV Tesla collision catalog'), and an additional useful detail ('with the number of SKUs in each'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_parts (which searches parts) and get_part (which fetches a single part).

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when you need an overview of catalog categories rather than searching for specific parts or delivery options. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', but the scope is self-evident and no exclusions are needed for a zero-parameter list operation.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the return fields: names, OE numbers, grade, category, and CAD list price. It does not mention pagination or default limits, but the safe read-only profile makes that less critical.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates scope, search inputs, and return values.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main search modes and return fields, but it omits the grade filter and limit/default-result behavior. The schema fills those gaps, so the overall tool remains usable, though the narrative leaves some details out.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mostly paraphrases query, model, and category and does not add significant parameter-specific meaning 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?

The description names a specific verb (search) and resource (MapleV's Tesla Model 3 / Model Y collision parts catalog) and enumerates concrete search dimensions. It is clearly differentiated from siblings such as get_part and list_categories.

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 implies when to use the tool—searching by keyword, OE number, model, or category—but does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as get_part for a known part ID. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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