Search the published CompatAir guides, glossary, methods and product pages. The server never fetches arbitrary external content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| locale | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | 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 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.
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.