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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search via the word 'Search', but does not describe what 'live' means relative to ingestion, whether results are paginated, or any other operational behavior. The bare statement adds little beyond the tool's obvious purpose.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the 'Not Trade Me' clarification earns its place by narrowing scope. Every word 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?

Given nine optional parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, this 13-word description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, filter behavior, limits, or data freshness, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention any of the nine parameters (city, fuel, make, limit, model, year_min, price_max_nzd, etc.), leaving filter semantics entirely undocumented for the agent.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Search') and specific resource ('live used cars on ingested NZ dealer yards'), distinguishing it from broader marketplaces like Trade Me. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'coverage' and 'get_listing', so it misses the explicit sibling distinction that would earn a 5.

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?

The phrase 'Not Trade Me' gives a single exclusion but provides no context on when to use this tool versus siblings 'coverage' or 'get_listing'. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without actionable routing guidance.

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