HotShot Gear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return content (specs + fit notes) but says nothing about ordering, missing/invalid ids, or rate limits. Consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and names the payload in the same breath. No filler.

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 comparison tool with one parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description states what comes back (specs and fit notes) and the arity. Only alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry meaning for 'ids'. It does clarify these are catalogue item identifiers and repeats the 2-3 count, but the count is already enforced by minItems/maxItems in the schema, so the added value is thin.

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 (two or three catalogue items by id) and even states the payload: side-by-side specs and fit notes. It is clearly distinct from find_gear (search) and get_item (single retrieval), though it never explicitly says so.

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 only implied: you call it when you want to compare 2-3 items. There is no statement of when NOT to use it, no routing to get_item for a single item or find_gear for discovery, and no note that the count is capped at three.

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 read-only, closed-world, idempotent behaviour, and the description adds meaningful context on top: the non-payment ranking, the three-result cap, GBP pricing with a checked-date caveat, the published fit_rule resource, and the semantics of an empty result. This is well beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the core action and then layers output shape, ranking rule, and empty-result handling, each of which earns its place. The long parenthetical category list is the only mildly bloated element, but it usefully delimits scope.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well: fit score, reasons, specs, evidence links, and a purchase link are all described, plus empty-result semantics. Given nine parameters and a recommendation engine, an agent still lacks guidance on how optional filters interact with ranking, which keeps it below 5.

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 56%, so about half the parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by enumerating the category space (darts, boards, flights, shafts, cases, mats, lighting, surrounds) and noting GBP currency, but it says nothing about use, level, left_handed, or the region restriction beyond the schema itself.

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: it recommends up to three darts-equipment items from a curated UK catalogue, and it lists the covered categories. An agent immediately knows this is a fit-ranked discovery tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools compare and get_item, so it falls short of 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 rather than stated: it is clearly the entry point for 'I want gear' requests, and the instruction to say the catalogue is empty rather than guess is useful handling guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus compare or get_item, and no prerequisites or exclusions, so this stays at minimum-viable.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload, notably that retailers are returned as names only with no links, plus the presence of provenance and a last-checked timestamp. It stops short of stating what happens for an unknown id or whether any field can be absent.

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 dense sentence with the operation front-loaded and the return contents ordered after it. Every clause adds information and nothing is repeated from the name, title, or annotations.

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 does the work of enumerating return fields and even flags the names-only limitation on retailer data, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The only gap is error or not-found behavior for an invalid id, which an agent might reasonably want to know.

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?

The single 'id' parameter is an undocumented string in the schema (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden of explaining its origin, which it does by pointing to find_gear as the source of valid ids. That is meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it gives no format hints (opaque token vs. slug) or validation behavior.

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 ('Returns the full record for one item by id') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (specs, fit fields, why/why not, evidence links, retailers, provenance, last-checked). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling find_gear by noting where ids originate, so an agent can place it in the workflow 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 rather than stated: 'ids come from find_gear' tells the agent this is the follow-up step to a search, and the sibling 'compare' is never mentioned. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-selection rule, so the agent must infer that this is a per-id detail lookup versus a multi-item comparison.

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