get_table_parts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the response (field list) which compensates for the absent output schema, and explains the fitment evaluation behavior, but says nothing about result size, pagination, error behavior for an invalid table, or whether the call is a pure read.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the field list second. The vin sentence is slightly redundant with schema text but is short enough not to be waste.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and one fitment hint. It omits the discovery chain for catalogue/group/subgroup/sgs_code, the mvs-without-VIN path, and any guidance on variants or the only_fitting filter, leaving the agent to reconstruct workflow from the schema alone.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about vin fitment duplicates the schema's own vin description, and it adds nothing about the mvs fallback, lang, drive, variante, or only_fitting parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Get the parts list of a table (drawing)') plus an enumeration of the returned fields (reference number, part number, quantity, description, notes, option pattern, modifications). This clearly separates it from get_part (single part) and search_parts (query-based), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is 'Pass vin to evaluate fitment for that vehicle', which explains one optional parameter rather than when to choose this tool over search_parts or get_part. Nothing states prerequisites (e.g. that sgs_code must come from list_tables) or what to do when no VIN is available.

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