search-modifications-by-hf-tire

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by emphasizing that section_width is in INCHES (a notable unit difference from standard by_tire tools), but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination mechanics, error handling, or return format beyond what the schema and annotations imply. No contradiction with 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 compact: one purpose sentence plus a quick-reference list of required/optional parameters. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. The required/optional list is slightly redundant with the schema but serves as a convenient summary without being verbose or rambling.

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 the complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and input requirements. It does not explain the return payload or pagination defaults, but limit/offset semantics are in the schema. The phrase 'specific trim variants' gives a basic expectation of results. It is sufficient for a well-utilized search tool.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters already having useful descriptions (e.g., slugs from list-makes, units, constraints). The description repeats the required/optional split and the INCHES note but adds no new information beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Find') and a clear resource ('specific trim variants of a known make+model') that is uniquely tied to an HF tyre size. This distinguishes it from siblings like search-by-hf-tire (which likely does not require make/model) and search-modifications-by-tire (which may use standard metric units).

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 explicitly lists the five required parameters and three optional ones, giving clear invocation context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the 'known make+model' prerequisite strongly implies the appropriate scenario.

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