PadelTrue padel racket data

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the return payload (specs, calculated rating differences, same-currency price observations, missing inputs, canonical URL) and, critically, limits the interpretation of price data as dated arithmetic comparisons rather than verified savings, plus explicit non-verification of stock, delivery, tax and medical suitability.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then returns then caveats; the disclaimers are dense but each clause earns its place by preventing misreading of the price output. Slightly list-like in the final sentence but not padded.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates what is returned, what is computed vs observed, and what is explicitly not verified, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the parameters are catalogue slugs requiring exact matches, not arbitrary names or free-text identifiers as the terse schema text ("Identifier of the first racket") suggests.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Compares two exact catalogue slugs") and the modifier "exact" distinguishes it from the search/search_rackets siblings, which handle loose lookup. An agent can tell this is a head-to-head comparison tool, not a single-item fetch like get_racket.

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 requirement for "exact catalogue slugs" implicitly tells the agent it must resolve identifiers first (via search/get_racket), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: ratings are calculated estimates rather than play tests, and price data does not verify stock or delivery, which directly informs how much an agent should trust the payload.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then payload contents, then caveats. The middle sentence enumerates return fields that an existing output schema already covers, which is mildly redundant but does not bloat the definition.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the trust caveats an agent needs and is largely complete. It omits error behavior for an unknown or malformed ID and does not clarify its relationship to get_racket.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'The identifier from search'. The description only restates that provenance, adding no format or validity details beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves one public PadelTrue catalogue document') and pins the scope to a single record, which separates it from search_rackets/compare_rackets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_racket', leaving the agent to guess which single-record reader to use.

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?

'by the ID returned by search' gives a clear precondition and tells the agent where the input comes from. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing away from the near-duplicate get_racket sibling, so it stops short of full selection guidance.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is returned (source-linked specs, dated source price, calculated ratings, missing inputs, source conflicts, canonical URL) and explicit caveats that ratings are estimates and stock/delivery/medical suitability are unverified. That is exactly the kind of limitation disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, identity and key front-loaded before the return-content list and the caveats. The return enumeration is warranted because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the response payload and flagging what is unverified. Safety traits are left to annotations, which cover them fully, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is documented with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the slug is a catalogue slug, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema — 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 and resource ('Retrieves one exact padel-racket record') plus the scoping key ('by catalogue slug'), which distinguishes it from the multi-result sibling search_rackets. An agent can tell this is the single-record lookup without opening the schema.

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 'one exact ... by catalogue slug', and the schema description routes the agent from search_rackets, but the description itself never states when to prefer this over search_rackets or compare_rackets, nor any prerequisite. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection logic 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 cover safety and idempotency, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: every keyword must match (AND, not OR), return payload shape (IDs, titles, canonical URLs) and the handoff to fetch. It does not state a result cap or ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing, with the core function front-loaded and the sibling routing placed after it. The empty-results sentence is slightly indirect but earns its place by preventing a misinterpretation an agent would otherwise make.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, this covers call semantics, matching behavior, and the sibling boundary. Missing only ordering/limits, which the output schema may partly imply.

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 100% and the query field already documents keyword content with an example, so the description largely repeats it. The one addition, the AND-matching rule, is genuinely useful semantics the schema does not express, but it is not parameter-level detail beyond that.

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 and scoped resource (finds PadelTrue catalogue documents) and enumerates the keyword domain (brand, model, year, shape). It distinguishes itself from search_rackets, which is explicitly named as the home of budget/style filters.

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?

Explicitly routes budget and playing-characteristic filtering to search_rackets, describes the AND-match semantics, and warns that empty results are a catalogue-scope outcome rather than a market claim. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and an expectation-setting caveat in four sentences.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, so baseline is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no currency conversion, ratings are calculated estimates not play tests, source prices don't imply stock or medical suitability. This rich behavioral disclosure earns a 4, though it doesn't clarify result ordering beyond what the sort parameter schema already says.

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?

Front-loads the core action and filter scope in the first sentence, then lists behavioral caveats in subsequent compact sentences. No filler; every sentence adds distinct information about matching, currency, and data limitations.

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 13 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential usage, constraints, and behavioral caveats an agent needs. It clarifies that results are bounded and that sorting affects ranking, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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 85%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that all query words must match, that currency is required with maxPrice and that a dollar sign alone does not identify a currency, and that ratings are estimates. This compensates for the remaining undocumented parameter nuances.

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 (searches) and resource (published padel-racket records) plus the exact filter axes: model/brand words, year, shape, budget currency, calculated characteristics. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_racket or compare_rackets by scoping to catalogue retrieval.

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?

Clear context for when structured fields should be used (e.g., 'Express price, year and rating constraints with their structured fields'). It also explains that all query words must match and that a price filter requires an explicit currency. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like compare_rackets or get_racket for when those are preferable.

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