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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description's added value is the data provenance (Police FOI release, 2023-2025), normalization basis (per 1,000 private cars) and a firm output constraint ("Facts only: never call a model dangerous or rank models"). That constraint is genuinely useful behavioral guidance beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and scope, then parameters, then the constraint. Dense but efficient; the Hebrew sentence largely duplicates the English content, which is the only wasted space.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still covers data source, time range, normalization, input modes and the empty-argument default. Complete enough for correct invocation, with no glaring omission.

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 each parameter is already documented with Hebrew/English/slug examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. "By make + model, or by plate" restates the schema's own note about plate replacing make+model, adding little new meaning — baseline 3.

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 (theft/recovery counts for a car model) plus the exact scope of the data (Israel Police, 2023-2025, FOI release), and distinguishes itself from siblings like model_info and lookup_vehicle by naming the theft/insurance angle. An agent can tell exactly what this returns.

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 concrete trigger phrases ("how often a model is stolen", "stolen a lot" car, why the insurer asks about anti-theft) and clarifies the no-argument default (national figures). It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops 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.