CordFind Generator Compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful framing that this is a planning/comparison calculation bounded by a voltage-drop limit, but it does not say whether the result is a recommendation or a ranked table, nor that outputs are planning estimates rather than code-compliant determinations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and then the inputs, with no filler, hedging, or repetition of the title. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of conveying the return value; 'compare' hints at a ranked result but the shape (single recommended gauge vs. full comparison table) is never stated. For a four-parameter engineering calculator with no output schema, that omission is the main remaining gap.

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 100% and every parameter carries its own description, including units and the discrete allowed values. The description merely restates those inputs in prose ('load current, voltage, one-way distance, and a voltage-drop planning limit') without adding syntax, ranges, or defaults beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('common American Wire Gauge sizes') and enumerates the four driving inputs, so an agent knows exactly what computation this performs. It does not, however, contrast itself with the siblings get_connector_compatibility or search_generator_guides, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (sizing a cord for a given load), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling lookup/guide tools, nor any note about prerequisites such as needing a known ampacity or distance. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is the classification of possible results (direct compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, unsafe paths), which usefully signals that this is a diagnostic classifier rather than a boolean check. However, 'verification boundaries' is undefined jargon and no determinism, limitations, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the inputs first and the outcome categories after, with no filler. Slightly dense with terms like 'verification boundaries' that are never unpacked, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

For a three-parameter, all-required, fully documented read-only screen with no output schema, the description covers the action and the shape of the result categories an agent should expect. Missing only explicit guidance on how its verdict categories relate to the sibling sizing/guide tools.

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 100% and both enums are documented (connector families, destinations, allowed distances), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the three inputs in prose without adding format, constraint, or interaction semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Screen') and the exact resource set (generator outlet, destination, cord distance) plus the outcome it produces (compatibility, adapter needs, unsafe paths). That clearly separates it from calculate_generator_cord_size and search_generator_guides, though it never names those siblings as 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?

Usage is implied: an agent infers this is the pre-purchase/pre-connection screening step, and the mention of 'adapter needs' and 'unsafe paths' suggests when it matters. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to calculate_generator_cord_size for sizing versus this tool for compatibility.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a topic inventory and no further behavioral detail such as ranking, return format, or query behavior, which is acceptable but minimal given the low bar set by 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is well-sized for a simple two-parameter search, though the topic enumeration could be tightened.

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?

For a simple read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing critical is missing; there is no output schema to explain. The only real gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus the sibling tools.

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 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented inline (including min/max and default), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's topic list loosely maps to what a query can contain but adds no syntax, phrasing, or format guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('CordFind', generator guides) and enumerates covered topics, so the agent knows what content is reachable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the siblings calculate_generator_cord_size and get_connector_compatibility, leaving the boundary between search-only and action-oriented tools implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a sibling (e.g., calculate_generator_cord_size) would be the better choice, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The topical list hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right pick.

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