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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter and it delivers: it discloses three distinct response states ('reviewed', 'raw', 'none'), mandates citing the reviewed analysis, and forbids inventing issues. The remaining gap is that it never explains how the mode is selected, given mode is absent from the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: trigger first, then the three mode behaviors, then the anti-fabrication rule. The most important routing information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 explained, and the description instead covers all three mode outcomes plus the failure mode to avoid ('never invent issues'). It is nearly complete for a read tool, with the sole omission being sibling disambiguation against get_recalls.

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% for make/year/model and each points to resolve_vehicle for slug derivation, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mode semantics add real meaning, but mode is not a declared parameter in the input schema, so the agent has no way to set the modes the description spends most of its words on — this creates ambiguity rather than compensating for a documented parameter.

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 title plus description make clear this returns clustered owner complaints / reliability analysis for a specific vehicle, which is a specific verb+resource. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_recalls, which an agent will likely confuse with 'what commonly goes wrong' — the recall-vs-complaint boundary is left implicit.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger set: 'Use when the user asks what commonly goes wrong, about reliability, or about a specific symptom.' That is clear when-to-use guidance with concrete user phrasings, and the mode branches tell the agent how to respond. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. get_recalls) or stating when not to use this tool.

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