boardsesh_find_similar_climbs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond annotations: similarity is hold overlap on a 0-1 scale, 0.5 feels genuinely related, and climb_uuid should come from an earlier tool result. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then the when-to-use context, then the key similarity semantics and input source. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 four-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, invocation context, similarity semantics, and the source of the required parameter. Anything further, such as return values or parameter defaults, is already expressed in the schema and output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that climb_uuid is an opaque identifier from another tool's output and by giving the similarity threshold that helps interpret results, lifting it above the schema-only baseline.

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 climbs that use a similar set of holds to a given climb.' It further distinguishes the tool from generic search or recommendation siblings by making the similarity criterion explicit (hold overlap) and naming concrete use cases.

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 gives clear invocation triggers: user asks for climbs like one they enjoyed, one they are projecting, or wants to train a specific movement again. It stops short of the top tier because it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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