Find the smallest verified compressor substitution for an incompatible documented system. Commercial commission never affects ordering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| toolIds | Yes | ||
| compressorId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verdict | Yes | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| alternatives | Yes | ||
| next_actions | Yes | ||
| canonical_url | Yes | ||
| verdict_scope | Yes | ||
| air_supply_verdict | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building systems, evaluating compatibility, finding alternatives, retrieving offers, identifying products, routing questions, and searching knowledge. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., build_complete_air_system, identify_product). The verbs are imperative and clearly indicate the action.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for the domain of pneumatic air systems. Each tool covers a specific aspect without being too few or too many, providing a well-scoped interface.
The tool set covers the main workflows: identification, compatibility evaluation, system building, alternatives, offers, and knowledge search. Minor gaps like detailed product specifications could exist, but the core functionality is complete.