Return dated current prices and availability separately from technical verdicts. Only allowlisted, fresh merchant destinations are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| productIds | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | No | ||
| verdict | Yes | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| next_actions | Yes | ||
| canonical_url | Yes | ||
| verdict_scope | Yes |
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.
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.