search-classified-packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns product listings with SKU and compatibility data, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, result ordering, or what happens when no matches are found, so it only partially contributes beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a compact parameter list and return summary. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and 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 complex tool with 16 parameters, the description does a good job of covering the essential context: what the tool does, what parameters are required/optional, and what it returns. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the return description. It could be more complete by explaining the fitment compatibility logic or default behaviors, but given the rich schema and annotations, it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into required and optional lists and adds units, but the schema already describes each parameter in detail. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the parameter categories but does not introduce meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 it finds aftermarket wheel+tyre package products (rim+tyre combos sold together) compatible with a given fitment spec. The verb 'Find' plus the specific resource ('wheel+tyre package products') and scope ('compatible with a given fitment spec') precisely define the tool's purpose and distinguish it from siblings like search-classified-rims and search-classified-tires.

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 implies usage by defining the tool as searching for wheel+tyre packages, which implicitly differentiates it from rim-only or tire-only search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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