Brand-neutral carbide grade cross-reference. Returns grades comparable at the same ISO application position, with verified vs single-source labeling. Never invents a grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | Optional brand filter, e.g. Sandvik | |
| grade | Yes | Carbide grade code to look up, e.g. GC4325 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses data sourcing (brand-neutral, verified vs single-source labeling) and guarantees it never invents grades. This covers key behavioral aspects well.
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, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: cross-reference nature, return content, and trustworthiness guarantee.
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, so description should specify return format. It says 'returns grades comparable' but doesn't outline structure (e.g., list of brands/grades with labels). Slight gap, but adequate for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100% but description adds meaning: brand-neutral, ISO position, labeling quality, and truthfulness. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 grades comparable') and resource ('carbide grade cross-reference'), with details like brand-neutrality, ISO position, and labeling. It distinguishes itself by clarifying it never invents grades.
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 for looking up comparable grades but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor when not to use. Since no sibling tools are listed, the lack of exclusions is acceptable but limits clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools.
With a single tool, naming consistency is not an issue; the name 'grade_xref' is clear and descriptive.
The tool count of 1 is on the low side. For a cross-reference server, a single tool can be acceptable if it handles the core task, but users might expect additional utilities like grade lookup or filtering.
The server only provides a cross-referencing function. Missing features such as grade details, filtering by manufacturer, or handling of multiple comparisons create significant gaps in coverage.