wheel-spec-metadata

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what the tool computes (geometry hints, population stats, optional fitment hints) and that all fields are optional. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 sentences, each contributing: purpose, optionality, precise results guidance, return payload, and use cases. No fluff or repetition; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (geometry hints, population stats, fitment hints) and when it's useful. The schema handles parameter semantics; the description covers the tool's role and output adequately.

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 each parameter is already documented with meaning and constraints. The description adds only high-level guidance ('Provide as many as known for precise results') and references hints=true but doesn't explain parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get computed geometry and population statistics for a given wheel/tyre specification,' clearly identifying the verb (Get) and resource (computed geometry/population stats). It also enumerates specific return types (backspace, frontspace, clearance estimates, population stats) and optional fitment hints, distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: 'Useful for explaining fitment math to users or validating a spec before ordering.' It also advises 'Provide as many as known for precise results,' giving parameter usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a 5.

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