list-tire-rim-diameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are in inches and are filtered by compatibility with section width and aspect ratio. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens with missing parameters (all are optional in the schema) or the structure of the returned list, leaving some gaps for a list tool.

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 long, front-loaded with the action ('List all rim diameters'), and every clause adds value—the compatibility condition and the reference to search-by-tire justify its inclusion. 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?

Without an output schema, the description still communicates the unit (inches) and the compatibility concept. It references related enumeration tools ('Get codes from list-regions') via the schema, not the description, but the description's purpose is sufficiently complete for a mildly complex list tool. It could mention the optional nature of parameters or more detail on the output format, but the description is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema carries the bulk of parameter meaning. The description adds only that section width and aspect ratio are inputs used for compatibility, but does not elaborate on region (which is omitted from the description entirely) or value formats beyond what the schema already provides. 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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and clearly defines the resource: 'all rim diameters (in inches) compatible with a given tyre section width and aspect ratio.' It also explains its downstream purpose ('discover valid rim_diameter values for search-by-tire'), which disambiguates it from sibling tools like list-rim-diameters.

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 states a clear usage context: 'Use this to discover valid rim_diameter values for search-by-tire.' It implies when to use the tool (when needing compatible rim diameters for a tire size) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with similar tools like list-rim-diameters or list-hf-tire-rim-diameters, so it falls short of a 5.

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