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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by stating the critical behavioral fact: 'Returns NO prices' and pointing to the official calculator at car.cma.gov.il. This prevents a common misuse. Remaining gap: does not explain what the response actually contains (though an output schema exists).

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition and the scope, then adds the critical 'no prices' caveat. Efficient, though the mixed Hebrew/English and parenthetical detail makes it slightly denser than ideal for a one-sentence core.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing behavioral nuance (no prices returned) and input-mode guidance. It is nearly complete, only lacking explicit sibling routing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with examples in Hebrew/English/slug. The description clarifies the two mutually exclusive input modes (by plate vs by make+model+optional year), which adds a little beyond the schema's individual field docs.

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+resource (explicates which regulator pricing variables affect compulsory insurance price) and explicitly scopes it: by plate or by make+model+year. Distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_vehicle or explain_licence_fee by naming the exact question it answers and the exclusion of prices.

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?

Explicit 'Use when the person asks what their compulsory insurance price depends on' gives clear trigger context. It also clarifies the alternative entry points (plate vs make/model/year) within the tool, but does not name sibling tools to route away from.

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