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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context on top — it normalizes loose user phrasing and deliberately abstains on ambiguity rather than guessing. It does not describe the shape of the returned list.

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 normalization purpose and followed immediately by the fallback rule. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input interpretation, and the ambiguity fallback. The only gap is a hint about what the returned revisions list looks like, which a caller might want since no output schema exists.

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 the single parameter is self-documenting, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of the free-text input ("un Golf", "una furgoneta") and confirming the parameter is verbatim user speech, which the schema only states abstractly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it translates a free-text vehicle mention into a catalog vehicle type and returns the available revisions. This is clearly distinct from pricing, booking, and availability siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (the person described their vehicle informally) and an explicit when-not: if the vehicle can't be determined with confidence, do not guess and return the list instead so the agent can ask. No sibling alternatives are named, which keeps it short of a 5.

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