CompatAir

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

Description claims 'Build', implying a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint: true. This is a contradiction. Additionally, the disclosure about insufficient_data verdict is helpful but overshadowed by the contradiction.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a note on behavior. 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not clarify what the output contains beyond the 'insufficient_data' verdict. Missing component data is mentioned but not fully detailed. Lacks parameter 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 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters (mode, limit, toolIds, compressorId). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 builds a complete air system including compressor, tools, hoses, etc. It uses a specific verb 'Build' and lists the components, distinguishing it from siblings that evaluate or 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_air_compatibility or find_compatible_alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds value by noting that commercial data never changes verdict and that verdicts are returned separately, which goes beyond annotations.

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 unnecessary words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, 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?

Covers key behavior and output structure. Missing explanation of mode parameter, but output schema likely details return values. Overall adequate for a read-only 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 0%, and description does not explain any parameters. compressorId, toolIds, and mode (with enum) are not described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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?

Description clearly states it evaluates documented air-supply compatibility for a compressor and tools. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying separate verdicts for air-supply and complete-system, and that commercial data doesn't change verdict.

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?

Description implies usage for evaluating compatibility, with no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context makes it clear. Lacks explicit contrast with siblings like find_compatible_alternatives.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: 'Commercial commission never affects ordering', which clarifies result ordering independence. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral traits such as response format or pagination.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and a second sentence adding an important behavioral caveat. No superfluous words.

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 presence of a separate output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks parameter explanations and does not clarify how compressorId and toolIds relate, nor the significance of mode and limit. This omission is critical for a tool with 4 parameters and 2 required ones.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any of the 4 parameters (compressorId, toolIds, mode, limit). No parameter meanings, types, or usage are described, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond what the raw schema provides.

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's purpose with a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'compressor substitution', and adds qualifiers 'smallest verified' and context 'for an incompatible documented system'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_air_compatibility.

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 when there is an incompatible documented system but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_air_compatibility or search_knowledge. No 'when not to use' information is provided.

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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context: results are filtered to allowlisted and fresh merchant destinations, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description omits pagination details and parameter explanations. Given 3 parameters and filtering logic, it is somewhat incomplete but adequate for a simple 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 0%, yet the description does not mention any parameters. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, missing explanations for pagination parameters (limit, cursor) and productIds constraints.

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 returns dated prices and availability, separating it from technical verdicts. It specifies that results are limited to allowlisted and fresh merchant destinations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_air_compatibility.

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 (for prices/availability) and when not (for technical verdicts), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide detailed usage conditions.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds value by noting 'No network fetch is performed,' which is a behavioral detail not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no superfluous content. The first sentence lists all identifier types, front-loading the key information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and identifier types but lacks details on return values, handling of multiple matches (given the 'limit' parameter), or behavior when conflicting identifiers are provided. Given the output schema exists, it partially compensates, but ambiguity remains.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It lists identifier types (name, URL, EAN, etc.) but does not explicitly map them to parameter names (e.g., which parameter accepts 'MPN' or 'merchant URL'). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all. This leaves ambiguity in parameter selection.

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 identifies a catalog product from a specific list of identifiers (name, URL, EAN, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_compatible_alternatives and evaluate_air_compatibility by focusing on identification rather than compatibility or alternatives.

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 products by various identifiers but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over others like search_knowledge. The statement 'No network fetch is performed' gives some context but no direct comparison to alternatives.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool selects the smallest suitable tool and profile, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the verb and resource, the second gives usage context. Front-loaded and 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?

The tool is a router with one parameter, and the description covers its purpose and usage context. However, the lack of parameter explanation leaves a gap. The output schema exists but is not described, though the rule says description need not explain return values. Overall adequate but missing parameter detail.

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 parameter 'goal' has an enum of 9 values, but the description provides no explanation of what each value represents or how to choose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate and add meaning beyond the enum names.

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 routes a pneumatic-air question to the smallest suitable CompatAir tool and profile. It explicitly says to use when the next action is unclear, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are specific actions.

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 states when to use the tool ('when the next action is unclear'), providing clear context. It implies that if the appropriate tool is known, one should use that directly, effectively guiding the agent.

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 convey safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: 'server never fetches arbitrary external content', reinforcing safe usage beyond the structured fields.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words, but could briefly summarize key parameters for better efficiency.

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?

Covers overall purpose and a key behavioral constraint, but omits parameter explanations and result details, which is a notable gap for a search tool with 5 parameters and an 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 coverage is 0% and description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (query, type, limit, cursor, locale), leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid queries.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' and identifies distinct resources (guides, glossary, methods, product pages), clearly differentiating from sibling tools that focus on building systems or evaluating compatibility.

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?

Description implies use for information retrieval from a known set of published sources. It does not explicitly state when to avoid or name alternatives, but the context and sibling list make the intended usage clear.

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