search-by-hf-tire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds scope context ('For pickup trucks and off-road vehicles') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination semantics, potential partial matches, or how open-world results should be interpreted. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them substantially.

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 three compact sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide the required format and parameter split. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details. Highly efficient.

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 read-only search tool with well-documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It explains the HF size notation, required fields, and optional params. It could mention that results are vehicle compatibility matches, but the purpose statement already implies this. The lack of return-value details is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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%, with each parameter having a detailed description including units, requiredness, and examples. The description reinforces the unit warning and format, but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full burden.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find all vehicles compatible with a given high-flotation (HF) tyre size.' It also specifies the exact input format (OD x SW R RD) and explicitly differentiates from standard tire searches by emphasizing inch-based section width, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like search-by-tire.

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 provides strong usage context: it's intended for pickup trucks and off-road vehicles, and it clearly indicates required vs optional parameters. It also warns about the unit difference ('INCHES, not mm!'), which implicitly distinguishes from standard by_tire tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives 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.