Search (user-initiated only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guardrail with 'only call when a user explicitly requests... Do not call in autonomous loops,' which is not present in annotations. It also clarifies the HF tire sizing convention. It doesn't discuss pagination or auth, but those are covered by schema and annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second paragraph explains the sizing format and points to an alternative, and the final paragraph delivers a critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, size format, alternative tool, and an explicit user-initiated constraint. There is no additional context needed for this read-only search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the HF sizing format ('overall diameter x section width R rim diameter, all in inches') and giving the concrete example 31x10.50R15, which helps the agent understand how the three required parameters relate to each other.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find vehicles compatible with a high-flotation (LT) tire size.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from ws_search_by_tire by explicitly stating that metric sizes should use the other tool. The reference to trucks, SUVs, and offroad vehicles further contextualizes the purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only when a user explicitly requests a tire compatibility search. It also gives a direct alternative: 'For metric sizes (e.g. 225/45R17) use ws_search_by_tire instead.' It explicitly warns against autonomous loops, which is a clear usage boundary.

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