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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: missing fields mean 'not tracked' (not that the vehicle lacks the item), the resumida parameter changes output granularity, and photos appear only when they exist. No contradictions with 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds parameter details, exclusions, and data semantics. Every clause adds value, though it could be split into multiple sentences for readability. It is not overly verbose for the information conveyed.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what to expect: content types, optional elements, the resumida switch, and the meaning of missing fields. It also points to methodology for the size classification and explicitly excludes maintenance plans, giving an agent everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantics for 'resumida' (default true, false gives full sheet) and clarifies the absence-of-data behavior, which the schema alone does not convey. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema 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 clearly states what the tool does: returns the technical sheet (dimensões, motor, consumo, etc.) of a version/year-model, plus official PBEV-Inmetro data when available, a proprietary size classification, and photos. It explicitly distinguishes from related tools by noting exclusions (maintenance plan) and clarifies the custom classification vs Inmetro's Annex D, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 strong usage context: it lists the exact contents, explains the resumida parameter's behavior, and explicitly states what is NOT included (maintenance plan), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use this when...' rule, leaving some inference to the agent.

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