kiwi_get_components

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. 'List components' clearly signals a read-only listing operation, and the filter example hints at scoping, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, ordering, or edge cases. It is not misleading, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The typical filter example earns its place by showing the most common usage.

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 simple one-optional-parameter list operation, the description plus schema cover what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema and pagination notes is a minor gap, but the operation is simple enough that this is not a significant omission.

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 schema fully documents the single 'query' parameter with examples, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description's typical filter example reinforces 'product' as a common filter but adds little beyond the schema's existing examples.

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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('components'), and the typical filter example shows the expected scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_* tools, but 'components' is a distinct resource, so the purpose is clear.

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 when to use this tool: when the agent needs to list components, optionally scoped by a product filter. It provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource-specific phrasing offers enough guidance for the common case.

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