Search (user-initiated only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns modifications/trims, empty result means no documented fitment, metric sizes only, and the MCP-side year filtering with production range echo. No contradictions.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: functional summary, concrete example, return behavior, API caveat, sibling comparison, and a usage warning. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: return semantics, empty result interpretation, year filtering logic, and the user-initiated constraint. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'year' is filtered MCP-side against production ranges, and clarifying metric size expectations. This meaningfully helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a specific tire size fits a specific vehicle (make + model, optionally year)' and gives a concrete example question. It also distinguishes from siblings by recommending this over ws_search_by_tire + ws_search_by_vehicle when the user names a specific vehicle.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over ws_search_by_tire + ws_search_by_vehicle comparison when the user names a specific vehicle.' It also includes an exclusion: 'only call when a user explicitly requests a fitment check. Do not call in autonomous loops.'

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