Search current Mercury outboard inventory at Harris Boat Works (Ontario). Filter by horsepower, family (FourStroke, Pro XS, SeaPro, Racing), or stock status. Returns CAD pricing. Excludes Verado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| family | No | ||
| max_hp | No | ||
| min_hp | No | ||
| horsepower | No | Exact HP (e.g. 90, 150) | |
| in_stock_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors (CAD pricing, Verado exclusion) but does not mention pagination, response format, or behavior on empty results.
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 extraneous words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is essential.
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 6 parameters with 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides reasonable coverage of purpose and main filters but lacks details on parameter interactions (e.g., min_hp vs max_hp vs horsepower) and result handling.
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 low (17%), but the description lists key filtering dimensions (horsepower, family, stock status). However, it does not explain parameters like limit, min_hp, or max_hp beyond the schema defaults.
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 it searches Mercury outboard inventory at a specific dealer (Harris Boat Works) with filters. It distinguishes from siblings like get_motor and build_quote.
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 explains what filters are available and mentions CAD pricing and Verado exclusion, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative tools. However, the context from sibling names provides implicit guidance.
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 quotes, estimating trade-ins, fetching brand rules, retrieving a single motor, and searching inventory. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., build_quote, estimate_trade_in, get_brand_rules, get_motor, search_motors.
With 5 tools, the set is focused and appropriate for a repower business. It covers core operations without being sparse or bloated.
The tools cover quoting, trade-in, rules, and motor details. Missing a tool for updating quotes or finalizing sales, but the main workflow is supported.