CordFind Generator Compatibility

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

There are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Compare common American Wire Gauge sizes' indicates a calculation/comparison but does not disclose the result format, whether a recommendation is returned, or that this is a stateless read-only computation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could arguably be expanded with output behavior, but as written it is concise and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or recommends after the comparison, and it does not. It also does not mention constraints like the 10–200 ft range or enumerated amps/volts values, although those are already structured in the schema; the output gap is the main shortfall.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description need not restate parameter meanings; the baseline is 3. The description does add at least the semantic notion that these inputs are used together for an AWG comparison, but it provides no details beyond 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 gives a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('common American Wire Gauge sizes') and names all four inputs, which makes the tool's core job clear and easily distinguishable from the sibling tools (connector compatibility, generator guides). It stops short of saying exactly what the comparison produces (e.g., a recommended gauge), so it is not a 5.

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?

Use is implied by the stated inputs: an agent can infer this tool is for selecting an AWG cord size based on amps, volts, distance, and drop limit. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance or mention of the sibling tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the tool's verdict taxonomy (four outcome buckets) and the verb 'screen' implies a read-only evaluation with no side effects. However, the semantics of 'verification boundaries' and 'unsafe paths' are never explained, and nothing is said about failure modes, limitations, or the result format beyond the category labels.

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 front-loaded sentence of about 20 words: the verb leads, the three inputs follow, and the four outcome classes close it out. Nothing restates the title, and every phrase encodes distinct information, giving the description a very high information-to-word ratio with zero 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?

The tool is moderately complex (3 required parameters, 2 enum-constrained) and has no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics. The four outcome terms sketch the result space, but two are ambiguous ('verification boundaries,' 'unsafe paths'), and the description does not say whether a verdict is a single classification or includes supporting detail such as the specific adapter required. The 100% schema coverage lowers parameter-side risk, but the output-side gap remains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value with natural-language aliases ('generator outlet,' 'destination,' 'cord distance') and by implying the three parameters are evaluated jointly, but it provides no format or domain semantics beyond the schema — such as what the NEMA/CS codes mean or how the constrained distance values (25/50/100) influence the verdict.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') acting on a concrete resource ('a generator outlet, destination, and cord distance') and enumerates the outcomes: direct compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, or unsafe paths. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings — calculate_generator_cord_size answers a cord-sizing question and search_generator_guides is a documentation lookup.

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 clear usage context: invoke this tool when a concrete generator connection must be vetted for whether it works as-is, needs an adapter, requires field verification, or is unsafe. It implies differentiation from the sibling tools by covering a different question, but it never names those alternatives or states explicit when-not conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only action, but the description does not state whether results are summaries or full documents, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists beyond the limit parameter, or any access 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then compactly lists the searchable domains. There is no redundant phrasing, filler, or repeated schema information.

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 straightforward search tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not explain what the return value looks like or how results are ranked, which would be helpful given the absence of an 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the query and limit parameters. The description adds topical context for what can be searched but provides no additional semantic meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or usage beyond what the schema already contains.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') over a named resource ('CordFind') and enumerates the covered topics: cords, plugs, sizing, transfer equipment, maintenance, and safety. It is clear enough to be distinguished from the sibling calculate_generator_cord_size and get_connector_compatibility tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over its siblings or when to avoid it. The description implies it is for researching guides, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving routing decisions to the agent's inference.

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