Padel Expert Lab

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: fixed page size of 10 results and the composite id format that downstream tools consume. It stops short of stating total page limits (page max 20 is only in the schema) or what happens when no racket matches.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the primary capability comes first and the pagination/id detail second. Every clause carries usable information for the caller.

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 compensates well by disclosing page size and the id format. For a 9-parameter, zero-required tool it is nearly complete; the gaps are the unmentioned sort parameter and pagination bounds, plus multi-filter interaction, all of which an agent can infer but not confirm.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents nom, marque, prix, poids, niveau and gamme. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics (e.g. whether filters are ANDed), and never mentions the tri or page parameters at all. Baseline 3 for a schema that does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb ("Liste"), a precise resource ("raquettes de padel") and two distinct retrieval modes — by name (marque/modèle/joueur) or by criteria — then enumerates the criteria. It also names the follow-up sibling voir_raquettes and the identifier format that connects the two, so an agent can place it against its siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clear about the two paths (free-text name vs. structured filters) and explicitly routes the agent to voir_raquettes using the returned "marque/modele-annee" id. It does not say when to prefer recommander_raquettes over a criteria search, which is the one obvious sibling routing decision left to inference.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add behavioral value — and it does: a cap of 3 results, ranking semantics, and the fact that each result carries characteristics, a last-observed price from the brand's official shop 'when it exists', and the reasons for the pick. The one soft spot is the conditional price availability, which is disclosed but not explained (no fallback stated).

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 tight sentences: what it returns, its provenance (same engine as the site quiz), and what each result contains. Front-loaded and waste-free; 'Même moteur que le quiz du site' earns its place by signalling result consistency.

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 correctly spends its space describing the return payload (characteristics, price, reasons) and caps results at 3. Given 5 enum-backed parameters with only niveau required, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the interaction between budget preference and ranking is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% with enums and per-value descriptions for every parameter, so the schema already does the semantic work (weight ranges in grams, budget tiers, frequency). The description only restates the dimension names and does not add ranking or weighting logic beyond what the schema and annotations convey; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (recommend up to 3 padel rackets ranked by fit to a player profile) and lists the profile dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never mentions the siblings chercher_raquettes or voir_raquettes, so the boundary between recommending and searching/viewing is left to be inferred from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer that this is the tool to call when it has a player profile (niveau required, the rest optional). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause and no pointer telling the agent to use chercher_raquettes for browsing or voir_raquettes for detail, which is the main gap.

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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it discloses what comes back (announced specs, other versions, alternatives) and qualifies that the official-shop price is only present "quand il existe", which warns the agent that price may be missing.

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?

It is essentially one dense sentence that front-loads the returned fields and ends with the 2-to-4 comparison case, with no filler. Slightly hard to scan because everything is packed into a single sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload — and it enumerates the spec fields, price, other versions, alternatives and the comparison-table mode. Complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not address the maxItems of 4 or what happens with an invalid identifier.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the "marque/modele-annee" identifier pattern with an example, so the baseline is a 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the cardinality semantics: a single racket yields a detail view, while 2 to 4 rackets produce a side-by-side comparison table.

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 and resource — it returns the brand-announced characteristics of a padel racket (shape, level, weight, balance, core, face) plus last price, other versions and alternatives. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from chercher_raquettes and recommander_raquettes by output type, but it never explicitly says it is the detail-lookup step rather than the search or recommendation 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?

Use is only implied: the description says it accepts 1 to 4 rackets and produces a comparison table, so an agent can infer it is the follow-up to a search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to a sibling for the search/recommendation case.

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