search-by-rim

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing pagination support (limit, offset) and the specific return shape (vehicle make/model/year/trim combinations). This is useful behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then requirements, options, pagination, and return type. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual elements: required field, optional filters, range syntax, pagination, and return shape. The schema handles parameter-level details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful organization by declaring bolt_pattern as required, grouping optional parameters (diameter, width, offset, centre bore, fastener, region), and noting range variants. This helps the agent understand parameter categories beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource: 'Find all vehicles compatible with a given rim specification.' The phrase 'Reverse lookup: which cars fit these rims?' clarifies the tool's distinct purpose, and the return value specification ('vehicle make/model/year/trim combinations') differentiates it from sibling tools that search modifications or classified listings.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (given a rim specification, find compatible vehicles) and what is required (bolt_pattern). It lists optional filters and pagination, giving a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention any exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., search-by-tire), so it falls just 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.