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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The genuinely additive sentence is the permission caveat ('Resource permissions depend on your Shop Boss API key'), but nothing is said about pagination behavior, result caps, or what happens when no filter is supplied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and filter list. The 'Read-only' clause duplicates an annotation and slightly dilutes the density, but overall there is little waste.

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 nine-parameter, zero-required query tool with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description covers the main filters and the auth constraint but leaves pagination semantics, default/max page size, and filter combination behavior unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call it well.

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 only 11% schema description coverage, the description must carry weight, and it does map most filters ('ID'→vehicleId, 'owner'→customerId, plus VIN/make/model/year). However it omits three of nine parameters entirely (shopId, page, pageSize) and gives no format hints such as year being a four-digit string.

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 ('Find vehicles') and enumerates the searchable fields, so an agent immediately knows this is a vehicle lookup tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the sibling set is entirely different resources (customers, parts, repair orders), so confusion risk is low.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus e.g. shopboss_list_customers (which may also surface vehicle data), nor on whether filters combine as AND, whether any filter is required, or how to page. The only contextual note is the permission caveat, which is not usage guidance.

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