list-hf-tire-section-widths

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds important behavioral context: the unit is inches (not mm), which is a known quirk for HF tyres, and clarifies the filtering options. It also states it lists 'all' section widths, though it doesn't describe return format or any pagination.

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 description is two sentences: the first states the core function and filters, the second provides a critical unit caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with thorough schema descriptions, the description covers the purpose, unit quirk, and optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state the return format or whether the list is exhaustive, but with good annotations and schema, this is adequate. A minor gap is not indicating the output structure (e.g., list of numbers).

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?

Both parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed and self-sufficient (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; the unit note applies to the output value, not the parameters. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource and scope: 'all section widths (in inches) for HF tyres, optionally filtered by overall diameter and region.' It explicitly distinguishes from standard tyre tools by noting the unit difference, which differentiates it from sibling list-tire-section-widths.

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?

It implies usage context: this is for HF tyres and mentions the optional filters. The note 'unlike standard tyre tools where it is in mm' signals that this tool is the HF-specific variant when working with HF tyre sizes. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling tool or state when not to use it.

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