Knarb Makes 3D Printable Kits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response will contain and narrowing scope to released kits, though it does not mention not-found behavior or response shape.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the returned data and ends with the required id source. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or restatement of annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what to pass, where to get it, and what to expect back. The only missing piece is an explicit boundary against get_purchase_link, which is minor for correct invocation.

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 does by explaining that the input is an id coming from search_kits, which gives the parameter provenance and meaning. The schema provides the format pattern, so the combination is sufficient.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a released kit') and enumerates the exact data returned: contents, scale, formats, price, original print photo, limitations, and license. This clearly distinguishes get_kit as the detail-inspection tool from search_kits, which is the discovery step.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use an id from search_kits, which is the essential prerequisite for using this tool correctly. It does not explicitly contrast with get_purchase_link, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies that no order is created, no charge occurs, no terms are accepted, and no paid files are provided. It also notes that the price is before tax, which is useful for the agent to communicate to the buyer. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second clarifies non-behaviors, and the third adds a pricing caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only link-return tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the link is for, what it does not do, and a pricing caveat. It does not describe the return format (e.g., whether the link is a string or object), but with no output schema and a simple use case, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter productId. The description does not explicitly explain what productId is or how to format it, but the schema provides a pattern and length constraints. The description's mention of 'product-page link' implies productId identifies the product, but it doesn't add much semantic meaning beyond the schema. With only one parameter and a clear schema, the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a tracked product-page link for the buyer to review and buy or download a free kit. It names the specific resource (product-page link) and the action (return), and distinguishes it from order creation or payment. The title reinforces this, and the description adds enough specificity to differentiate it from siblings like get_kit or search_kits.

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 this tool: when you need a link for a buyer to review/purchase or download a free kit. It explicitly states what it does NOT do (does not create an order, charge money, accept terms, or provide paid files), which helps an agent avoid using it for purchase completion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when to use get_kit or search_kits instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mark this read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: words are AND-matched, freeOnly and maxPriceUsd filters apply, price is before tax, and results include current public details and tracked product links. This gives agents useful operational context.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding distinct information: scope, matching behavior, filtering, and return content. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only search with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and return concept. It falls slightly short by not describing the limit parameter or the structure of returned results, but the schema supplies defaults and constraints for the omitted parameter.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains query matching, freeOnly, and maxPriceUsd, but it does not mention the `limit` parameter at all, leaving one of four parameters semantically underdocumented.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('released miniature, architecture and terrain kits'), and the scope is obvious. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_kit and get_purchase_link by describing a list-style search over released kits.

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 conveys that this is the search/browse tool for kits, which implies it is for discovery rather than retrieving a single kit or purchase link. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or mention any exclusions, leaving the usage boundary to be inferred from tool names.

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