search-by-tire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that it is a reverse lookup and that results are vehicle make/model/year/trim combinations. It does not describe edge cases, ordering, or completeness, but with annotations present, the added value is adequate.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, example, parameter list, and output shape. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses no filler. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given a 6-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape (vehicle combinations) and parameter grouping. It does not detail pagination, sorting, or the meaning of openWorldHint, but those are secondary. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The description consolidates the three core parameters as a tyre size (section_width, aspect_ratio, rim_diameter) and gives a concrete example, which is helpful. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions; it mostly restates what is already there.

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+resource: 'Find all vehicles compatible with a given standard tyre size.' It explicitly calls this a 'Reverse lookup' and gives a concrete example ('which cars fit 245/45R18?'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like search-by-model, search-by-rim, and search-by-hf-tire. The output (vehicle make/model/year/trim) is also stated, leaving no ambiguity.

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 conveys the intended use case (reverse lookup of vehicles by tyre size) and lists required vs optional parameters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough that an agent would understand when to choose this over siblings. The example further clarifies usage.

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