Tudetic Product Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are only 'candidates' and the user must verify fitment on the product page. This goes beyond the annotations by setting expectations about result certainty and the need for user confirmation.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second delivers an essential user instruction. Every word earns its place; it is highly efficient.

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?

While annotations and output schema exist, the high parameter count (10) creates gaps. The description establishes the primary use case and critical caveat, but it does not explain parameter combinations, the role of the q parameter, or shop/limit behaviors. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 10% (only pricing is described). The description adds meaning to registration and vehicle make/model/year parameters by framing them as input alternatives, but it leaves q, shop, limit, vehicle_cc, and lang unexplained. With 10 parameters, this is insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 finds product candidates for a registration plate or complete vehicle make/model/year. The verb 'find' is specific, the resource is product candidates, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on vehicle compatibility rather than generic product search or retrieval.

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 (when you have a registration plate or vehicle details) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_products or get_product. It provides a key user-verification instruction but lacks clear 'when not to use' 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 destructiveHint: false, so the retrieval nature is clear. The description adds the minor point that details are 'current', but does not go beyond this to discuss important behavioral aspects like authentication, errors, or limitations.

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, 15 words, directly answers the core purpose. There is no redundant information or padding; every phrase contributes to the intent.

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?

A single-sentence description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, especially with an output schema and annotations covering safety. However, the wording 'Tudetic product' is misleading because the 'shop' parameter supports multiple other brands, and the description does not clarify this broader context.

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%. The description does add that 'product ID' is the required key and 'variant ID' is optional, but it does not explain the meaning of 'lang', 'shop', or 'pricing' beyond what the schema already provides, leaving significant semantic gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve current details for a known Tudetic product ID and optional variant ID'. It clearly identifies the tool's action and scope, distinguishing it from searching for products or checking compatibility. The phrase 'known product ID' emphasizes that this is a direct lookup rather than a search.

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 usage: use the tool when you already have a product ID and optionally a variant ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like search_products when the ID is unknown.

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 destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by mentioning that it can search by natural language and vehicle attributes, but it does not disclose details about response size, pagination behavior, or performance implications. Given the read-only nature is covered, the description adds some value but could be more transparent about result limits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a clear usage statement. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and ideal use case. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, output schema present, and rich schema details like enums and defaults), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema likely explains the return format, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It could benefit from noting the vehicle-related parameters' purpose, but overall it covers the essential use cases. The description sets the right expectations for a 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 only 12% (just one parameter 'pricing' has a description). The description lists the types of queries allowed but does not add specific syntax or usage examples for parameters like 'q', 'sort', or vehicle fields. Since the schema is sparse, the description partially compensates by hinting at the breadth of search criteria, but it does not provide detailed explanations for individual parameters. It is adequate for a high-parameter search tool.

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 that the tool searches for products and lists the various search criteria (natural language, SKU, MPN, GTIN, brand, price, shop, vehicle). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_product' (retrieves a specific product) and 'check_vehicle_compatibility' (checks compatibility). It effectively communicates the tool's role in the broader context.

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 explicitly mentions 'Use for shopping and product comparison requests,' which provides clear context for when to employ this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_product' for retrieving specific product details. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary language.

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