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

Annotations already mark this read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds meaningful behavior detail: results are based on seller-declared risks, include the verbatim phrase and severity, and compute a price discount against a clean cohort, plus a category-level summary.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the core result and ends with a practical use case; there is no filler. The long list of risk categories makes it slightly heavy, but each element contributes.

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 14-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description names the key output components but leaves out response shape, pagination/ordering behavior, and how filters combine. Optional parameters and helpful annotations reduce the risk, but an agent still lacks some operational detail.

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?

Only 36% of the 14 parameters are documented in the schema and the description does not mention any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. Some parameter meaning is implicit through enums and names, but fields like brand, kmMax, transmission, and yearMin remain semantically thin.

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 clearly defines the tool's output: listings whose seller declares a risk, with the textual phrase, severity, and price discount compared with non-declared peers, plus a category summary. It is unambiguous, though it never names or contrasts a sibling tool such as search_used_cars, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Ends with explicit use cases: understanding the discount on a car with debt or discarding risky listings. This gives clear context for when to call it, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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