Checks whether a steel grade can replace another for machined, welded-structural, or pressure applications, returning a verdict with trade-rule reasoning.
Check if one steel grade can substitute another for a given application (machined / welded-structural / pressure). Returns verdict + reasoning from verified trade rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_grade | Yes | ||
| from_grade | Yes | ||
| application | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavioral detail: it returns a 'verdict + reasoning' and cites 'verified trade rules' as the source. However, it does not address limitations, error cases, or whether the operation is purely read-only.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the operation, scopes the application, and summarizes the return value. Every clause is informative and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple three-string-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the main input dimension, and the return shape. It could be more complete by defining the possible verdict values, but nothing essential for a first correct call is missing.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'application' by listing plausible values, and the directional roles of from_grade/to_grade are understandable from the description. It does not specify acceptable grade formats or exact string requirements, so the compensation is only partial.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'check if one steel grade can substitute another.' It further scopes the operation by application and distinguishes it from siblings like grade_lookup and cert_guide by its substitution-specific function.
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 phrase 'for a given application' with the enumerated categories (machined / welded-structural / pressure) gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to use a sibling instead, but the substitution purpose is sufficiently distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.