search_motorcycles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool searches used (not new) motorcycles and mentions filter categories, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. As a search tool, the behavior is inherently safe, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler. It earns a 5 for concise structure.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and a few representative filters but omits mention of location filtering, sort order, pagination, and the full range of makes/types. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description lists a subset of filter types (make, type, engine volume, price) that aligns with the schema. Since the schema already documents all 11 parameters, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'used motorcycles on Blocket', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cars and search_boats by focusing on motorcycles with MC-specific filters.

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 provides clear context: it is for searching used motorcycles on Blocket. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the tool's name and description make its applicable use case obvious. It could benefit from stating 'use this for motorcycle queries', but the context is clear.

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