Search (user-initiated only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it states the tool does NOT calculate physical fit based on wheel housing geometry, and explains that it relies on direct mapping of existing fitments. This is beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose, methodology, parameter usage, then an IMPORTANT usage note, and finally a sibling alternative. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanation could be condensed slightly.

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 18 parameters, an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description covers purpose, methodology, limitations, parameter combinations, and explicit usage constraints. It appropriately leaves return format details to the output schema and achieves a complete picture for this complex 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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, and the description adds valuable combinatorial semantics: exact values vs. min/max range pairs, with the requirement that 'one of exact or range is required per dimension.' However, this rule is explicitly applied to diameter and width, not clearly extended to offset or centre bore, leaving a minor ambiguity despite the schema.

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 'Find vehicles compatible with given rim specs via direct 1:1 wheel pair matching.' It uses a specific verb ('find'), identifies the resource ('vehicles compatible with rim specs'), and explains the matching method, distinguishing it from other search tools.

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 guidance is given: 'only call when a user explicitly requests a rim compatibility search. Do not call in autonomous loops.' It also names an alternative, ws_find_vehicles_for_rim, for e-commerce contexts, making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use very clear.

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