Used Fork Truck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states only that it 'Returns only figures the site already states,' which is a single reliability note; it does not disclose whether output is static, whether it requires auth, pagination, or formatting. For a zero-parameter reference tool, more context is needed.

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 long sentence that front-loads a string of topics before revealing the tool's function. It is reasonably compact but reads as a list dump rather than a front-loaded purpose statement.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference tool, the description covers the subject matter but omits the return shape and usage context. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what an agent receives and when to prefer this over sibling price tools.

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 takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the absence of inputs.

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 enumerates the topics covered (buyer ask price, free files, state seat, seller introduction, fleet quoting, grades A/B/C), which conveys the resource, but it never states a verb like 'returns' or 'explains' until the final clause. It reads as a topic list rather than a clear statement of what the tool does, though the closing sentence 'Returns only figures the site already states' does supply the action. Siblings like get_price_band and list_price_bands are not distinguished from.

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 call this tool versus get_price_band, list_price_bands, or the other siblings. The agent must infer that this is a reference/glossary lookup, with no stated conditions or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the returned fields (band, capacity, hours note) and disclaiming that the result is not an offer, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an invalid classId, or caching/staleness of price-book data.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core identity of the resource comes first. It is efficient, though the clipped phrasing ('Same band, capacity, and hours note as the book page') leans on context the agent may not have.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies what matters: what is fetched, how it is keyed, what fields come back, and what it is not. Missing only failure behavior and any relation to the list 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?

The single classId parameter has 100% schema description coverage and an enum of eight valid values, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by id' adds only minimal framing beyond the schema-defined 'Price book class id.'

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-free but unambiguous retrieval: 'One class from the price book, by id.' The singular 'one class' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_price_bands, and 'Not an offer' rules out a nearby concept. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_price_bands, desk_terms, or illustrate_financing. 'Not an offer' clarifies what the result is, not when the agent should prefer this tool, so usage must be inferred from the name and enum.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the tool is pure arithmetic, is not a credit offer/rate lock/promise, excludes taxes, freight, battery and doc fees, and states the desk publishes no rate. It also discloses the returned values (principal, formula payment, rounded dollars). It does not discuss precision/rounding rules beyond 'rounded dollars', which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded effectively, but the middle of the description redundantly re-lists the ranges and defaults that already appear verbatim in the schema descriptions, and the rate disclaimer is repeated. Several sentences do earn their place (exclusions, 'arithmetic only'), but the duplication of schema content is waste.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers returns, scope limitations, exclusions, input ranges, and defaults, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It is only slightly short of full completeness because it does not state rounding behavior or whether results are deterministic/illustrative-only outputs beyond the 'rounded dollars' phrase.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, their ranges, and the opening illustration defaults. The description merely restates those same ranges and does not add syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 first sentence names a specific verb (illustrate) and resource (a monthly note) and pins it to the finance page's behavior. It further disambiguates by stating what it is not ('not a credit offer, not a rate lock') and clarifies the arithmetic-only nature, so an agent can tell it apart from any real financing/quoting operation among the siblings.

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 tells the caller to 'Pass price, down, aprPercent, and months' and enumerates the accepted ranges, which is invocation guidance rather than selection guidance. It never says when to choose this over an alternative sibling or what prerequisites/context are needed, so usage is only implied.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data provenance ('observed US independent listing ranges'), which tells the agent these are market observations, not quotes. However, it says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or freshness beyond the 'autumn 2026' label.

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 short sentences with no filler; the resource and scope come first, followed by the data-semantics clarification and the optional filter. Every clause carries 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 single-optional-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, provenance, and exclusions well. It stops short of describing the shape of returned records, which the absent output schema leaves entirely unspecified.

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 the enum is fully enumerated in the schema, so the description's restatement of the fuel filter and its values adds no information. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does all 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 (List) and resource (price bands) with clear scope: autumn 2026, used forklifts, sourced from the price book. It also disambiguates the data type by ruling out inventory and offers, and the plural 'list' naturally contrasts with the sibling get_price_band.

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?

'Not inventory and not offers' gives a partial when-not boundary, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this enumeration over the singular sibling get_price_band, nor does it state any prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool is read-only ('does not submit a request'), which is valuable. However, it does not describe return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits an agent might need.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource description and ending with a clear non-mutation constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description tells what choices exist but does not explain the shape or format of the returned data. Some completeness gap remains because no output schema exists to offload that information.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space on parameter details.

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 the resource (choices on the buyer request form, dealer seat form, and fleet form) and clarifies that state names are options on the seat form. This is more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly state the verb 'list' or differentiate from sibling listing tools beyond the tool name itself.

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 only usage guidance is a negative constraint: 'This tool does not submit a request.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools for related tasks.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering and pre-introduction usage, but does not state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or return shape; for a zero-parameter list the risk is low, so this is partial rather than inadequate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by usage and exclusion details. Each sentence adds distinct value, though the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter list with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers resource, order, usage context, and scope boundary. It could say more about return format, but that is not required for an agent to select and call this 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for zero params is 4, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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 the specific resource (walk-around checks on the method page) and its ordering, and distinguishes it from the OSHA daily exam. The name supplies the 'list' verb, and the description makes the resource concrete enough to separate from siblings like screen_truck.

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?

Gives clear workflow context ('The desk uses these before an introduction') and an explicit exclusion ('This is not the OSHA daily exam'). It does not name a tool alternative, but the when-condition and scope boundary are stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the computational model (starts from a class band in the autumn 2026 price book, adjusts for year, hours, grade, power-state) and the output shape (low, point, high). It still omits whether the tool is read-only/side-effect free, units/currency of the returned numbers, and error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape in the first sentences, with zero filler. Mild redundancy in re-listing the year range and grade/power values that the schema already defines verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the three returned values (low, point, high), and with 5 required, fully-described parameters the call is unambiguous. Remaining gaps are secondary: currency/units of the result and any failure modes.

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 enums are richly documented in the schema itself (grade A/B/C meanings, power sound/unknown/needs-work, year 1998-2026). The description largely restates those ranges and enum values rather than adding new meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Screen a truck'), explains the derivation basis (autumn 2026 price book class band plus year/hours/grade/power adjustments) and the return shape (low/point/high). It does not explicitly name any sibling (e.g. get_price_band) to differentiate itself, so it falls just 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?

Explicitly frames the scope with exclusions: 'A screen, not an appraisal and not a bid,' which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It gives no positive trigger conditions or named alternatives among desk_terms/get_price_band/illustrate_financing, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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