search-classified-tires

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety information. It adds the scoping detail that results are 'aftermarket tyre products' and that it returns listings matching the size, which is helpful but not deep. No contradictory information is present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently covers required and optional parameters alongside return type. No wasted words or redundant detail.

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?

The tool is simple with fully documented inputs, but there is no output schema, and the description only says 'Returns tyre product listings' without describing the return fields or pagination behavior. It also omits the 'classified' aspect from the name, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools. Adequate for a straightforward search but not fully 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% with each parameter having a detailed description including units, examples, and constraints. The description merely restates which parameters are required/optional, adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 the action ('Search') and resource ('aftermarket tyre products'), with a specific scope (by tyre size specification). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-by-tire' or 'search-modifications-by-tire', but the resource and required parameters make its purpose understandable.

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 when a user needs to find aftermarket tires based on size dimensions, as it lists required and optional parameters. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related search tools (e.g., 'search-classified-packages' or 'search-by-tire'), nor any exclusions.

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