Classified (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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that it 'considers both physical wheel fitment (backspace) and tire size compatibility simultaneously' and suggests using sort='fitment' for closest matches, which goes beyond schema details and provides useful insight into tool behavior.

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 compact, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, the second paragraph adding a key behavioral differentiator and sort tip, and the third providing usage context and an alternative. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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 has an output schema and 100% parameter description coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter. It covers purpose, usage context, sibling distinction, and behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The e-commerce use case and the alternative guidance make it contextually complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; for instance, the sort='fitment' hint is already described in the schema's sort parameter enumeration. Thus no extra value beyond the schema is present.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find vehicles compatible with a rim + tire package.' It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is the 'Most precise classified search' and explicitly contrasts with ws_find_vehicle_modifications_for_package, making the verb+resource+scope specific and non-ambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'For e-commerce combo/bundle product pages.' and an alternative: 'To drill into a specific generation, use ws_find_vehicle_modifications_for_package.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus a sibling, satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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