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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it identifies the returned data (IDs, addresses, listing counts) and the downstream purpose of dealer_id values. It does not discuss pagination or limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output fields, followed by the most actionable routing information. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still usefully names them. It covers the key downstream use of dealer_id and points to get_dealership for complementary data. Some operational details (limit semantics, empty-result behavior) are left implicit, but the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 moderate at 50%: country and location are described in the schema, while query and limit are not. The phrase 'by name or place' indirectly maps to query and location, adding some meaning, but the description does not clarify limit or query syntax beyond that. A 3 reflects the schema doing much of the work while the description partially compensates.

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 and resource ('Find participating dealerships') and immediately states the scope ('by name or place') and returned fields ('IDs, addresses and listing counts'). It also names the sibling get_dealership as the tool for contacts and hours, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

It clearly frames this as the lookup tool for dealer IDs and explains that those dealer_id values are used to select named-dealer stock, with get_dealership pointed to for contacts and hours. It lacks explicit exclusion rules (e.g., when not to use it), so it falls short of a full when/when-not guide.

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