Trail Fortress Fitment

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it enumerates the exact return vocabulary and commits to a 'never guesses when data is missing' policy, which tells the agent how to treat the `unknown` case. It omits latency, caching, or data-coverage limits, but the tri-state contract is the important disclosure and it is present.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the tri-state output) is front-loaded. The tradeoff is that the opening sentence leads with return values rather than a purpose statement, so it is efficient rather than optimally 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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description usefully documents the return values, which is the main gap such a tool usually has. It remains incomplete on the four undocumented parameters and on how it differs from the overlapping `tire_fitment` sibling.

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% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. In particular `product_url_or_sku` accepts two different input forms and neither the schema nor the description explains the expected format.

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 the three-valued result (fits / does_not_fit / unknown) and the data source (manufacturer application data), making the tool's job clear when read with the title. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling `tire_fitment`, which appears to be an overlapping fitment tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With a sibling called `tire_fitment` covering similar ground and `find_parts_for_vehicle` in the mix, the agent gets no help deciding which fitment tool to call for a given query.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the filtering behavior applied to results (fitment-checked, in-stock only, listable prices only) and flagging manufacturer exclusions as living on product pages. It stops short of explaining result limits or pagination, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the most decision-relevant fact (what comes back). It is efficient, though the density comes partly from omitting necessary input detail.

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 five parameters, three of them required and 20% schema coverage, plus no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any guidance on required identifiers, result limits, or how to choose this tool over search_parts/check_part_fit. It partly compensates for the missing output schema by summarizing return content, but the overall picture is incomplete.

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 only 20% (just the optional category slug), so the description would need to carry parameter meaning for make/year/model/limit. It mentions none of them, adding zero information about required identification fields or the limit control.

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 name and title establish the verb+resource (find parts for a vehicle), and the description sharpens it by describing the output: a fitment-checked listing URL plus in-stock parts with listable prices. However, it never states the input basis (year/make/model) and gives no differentiation from the sibling search_parts or check_part_fit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use direction, no prerequisite (e.g., 'call list_vehicle_options first'), and no mention of alternatives such as search_parts or check_part_fit. The only caveat, 'Manufacturer exclusions are on each product page,' is a data note rather than usage 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?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful content-level context by declaring what is returned and explicitly what is excluded (cost/trade pricing), which prevents wrong expectations. It stops short of covering error behavior for invalid SKUs/URLs or any lookup constraints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and closed by the exclusion. Every clause adds information; nothing is repeated from the name, title, or schema.

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 field enumeration does real work in describing the return payload, which is appropriate for a read-only tool. However, it omits any explanation of the identifier input or routing relative to the five sibling tools, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 0% and the single parameter product_url_or_sku carries no description, so the description must compensate and does not — it never mentions the input. The parameter name is largely self-describing (URL or SKU) and maxLength 80 hints at SKU-oriented input, keeping this at baseline rather than below.

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 resource (product) and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, brand, part number, price, availability, key facts, exclusions), so an agent knows precisely what this retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_parts or check_part_fit, but the resource is unambiguous 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_parts or find_parts_for_vehicle, nor any stated prerequisites. The clause 'No cost or trade pricing' scopes the returned content but is not usage direction, so the agent must infer that this is a single-item lookup by identifier.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds that the output is the set of valid catalogue values, which is useful context, but says nothing about size, pagination, or ordering. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with the return content front-loaded and the usage cue immediately after. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and a usage trigger. Only the shape/size of the returned catalogue (flat list vs. nested years→makes→models) is left unstated, a minor gap given the absent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters (make, year) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes only illustrative value-domain examples (Wrangler JK, 1500, F-150) and no syntax or filtering behavior beyond what the schema states; 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 states a specific verb (Returns) and resource (valid years, makes, models in the Trail Fortress catalogue), so an agent immediately knows what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_part_fit or find_parts_for_vehicle, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this before guessing model spelling' gives a clear triggering condition for the tool. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which is what would be needed for 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?

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's remaining job is to add scope detail; it does disclose that results are restricted to items with listable prices. It says nothing about result ordering, the effect of the limit ceiling, or what happens when a query matches nothing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint follows the core purpose. Nothing is padded, though there is little structure to speak of beyond that one clause.

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 should at least clarify what a result contains and how the limit behaves, and it leaves both open. It also says 'products' while the tool and siblings use 'parts', creating a small terminology gap for a two-parameter search 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly characterizes the required 'query' as full-text or part-number input. The 'limit' parameter (1-20) is never mentioned, and its accepted range and behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 (search) and resource (products/parts) plus two search modes: full-text and part-number. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like find_parts_for_vehicle or get_product, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named among the five siblings. The only routing signal is the implicit 'listed products with listable prices only' scope, which the agent has to interpret on its own.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine provenance detail: results come from manufacturer strings already in the catalogue, and it distinguishes verified sizes from 'stated max tire claims' and 'lift-only notes'. It still says nothing about empty-result behavior, coverage limits, 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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned data. It is slightly jargon-heavy ('lift-only notes', 'manufacturer strings already in the catalogue'), which costs a little readability.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields. But for a 4-parameter tool with three required vehicle identifiers and thin schema descriptions, it omits input semantics and any no-match or coverage caveats, leaving the picture incomplete.

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 only 25% — just the optional 'tire' token is documented in the schema. The description never explains the required year/make/model inputs or how the optional tire token interacts with them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and return set: verified tire sizes, max tire claims, lift-only notes, and matching wheels. An agent can tell this is a tire/wheel fitment lookup distinct from generic part search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with check_part_fit or find_parts_for_vehicle.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. that year/make/model are required), and no reference to any sibling tool. The agent must infer from the name alone when this beats check_part_fit or search_parts.

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