Classified (user-initiated only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it returns 'per-vehicle rows with OEM wheel specs and fitment deltas' and positions the tool as completing the e-commerce chain. This enriches the annotation data without contradicting it.

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 efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a PREREQUISITES bullet list and a return-value summary. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 21 parameters and a defined workflow, but it could be slightly tighter—some phrasing (e.g., 'Completes the e-commerce chain') is rhetorical rather than purely informative.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields. It covers the key contextual aspects: prerequisites, parameter inheritance, return content, and the place in the workflow. It might benefit from a brief note on pagination or error conditions, but those are not essential given the schema and annotations.

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 value by explaining that make/model/generation slugs must come from the parent search and that rim/tire parameters and tolerances should be the same as the parent search. This guidance helps the agent correctly populate parameters that would otherwise be ambiguous even with schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'Drill down into individual trims for a generation from ws_find_vehicles_for_package,' which clearly identifies the tool's specific verb ('drill down'), resource ('individual trims'), and its relationship to the sibling tool. It also distinguishes it from the parent search tool by describing the downstream step in the fitment workflow.

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 explicitly states prerequisites ('call ws_find_vehicles_for_package first'), tells the user to extract make/model/generation slugs from parent results, and instructs to 'Use the same rim AND tire parameters and tolerances as the parent search.' This gives clear, actionable when-to-use guidance and also implies when not to use the tool (e.g., if the parent hasn't been called or if you lack generation results).

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