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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it returns dealer.dealer_id but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs or other context. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is modest but acceptable additional context.

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, efficient sentence that wastes no words. 'For full detail' front-loads the purpose, though it could be more direct. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the input source and a notable return field. It does not discuss errors or fallback behavior, but given the annotations and output schema, this is acceptable and effectively complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that listing_id must be the 'exact shop_vehicles listing_id', providing the source and precision required. This adds meaning beyond the schema's uuid type, though it could elaborate further on the ID's role.

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 implies this tool fetches full vehicle details via 'For full detail', and specifies the key input (listing_id) and a return field (dealer.dealer_id). It is clear in context but relies on the tool name/title for the explicit 'get vehicle' purpose, so it lacks the directness of the highest standard.

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 instruction to 'pass exact shop_vehicles listing_id' gives a clear when-to-use context: after obtaining a listing_id from the shop_vehicles tool, use this tool for full details. It implies a dependency but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use.

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