compare_vehiclesOnly for explicit comparison: after exactly one shop_vehicles call, pass 2-4 distinct returned listing IDs. Never search or shop again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| priorities | No | Shopper priorities, up to eight. | |
| listing_ids | Yes | 2-4 exact IDs returned by shop_vehicles. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compared | Yes | ||
| vehicles | Yes | ||
| recommendation | Yes | ||
| missing_listing_ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint – no contradiction. The description adds workflow context: dependency on a prior shop_vehicles call and the constraint on passing specific IDs. This is valuable beyond 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the return format need not be elaborated. The description covers precondition, constraint, and exclusion. Priorities are omitted but documented in schema. Slightly more context on what the comparison includes would improve completeness.
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%, baseline 3. Description mentions listing IDs constraint (2-4 distinct) but does not add meaning for 'priorities' parameter. The workflow hint ('after exactly one shop_vehicles') is useful but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond 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 uses explicit verb 'compare' referencing vehicles via listing IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like search and shop_vehicles by stating it is 'only for explicit comparison' and instructing 'Never search or shop again.'
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?
Provides clear when to use: 'after exactly one shop_vehicles call, pass 2-4 distinct returned listing IDs.' Also states what not to do ('Never search or shop again'), implying alternatives (shop_vehicles for initial search, other tools for different tasks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a highly specific purpose with strict context rules (e.g., compare_vehicles only after shop_vehicles, fetch only for citations). No two tools appear to do the same thing; even search and shop_vehicles are explicitly separated by use case.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_vehicles, find_dealerships, get_vehicle), but 'fetch' and 'search' are single verbs without objects, and 'shop_vehicles' uses an uncommon verb. The mix of styles reduces consistency.
With 10 tools, the server covers the key stages of car shopping (discovery, comparison, details, dealership info, test drive, trade-in, inquiry) without being bloated. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers the core shopping workflow, but it explicitly prevents refinement (one shop_vehicles call only) and lacks advanced features like financing calculators, vehicle history, or saved searches, leaving noticeable gaps for common user needs.