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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool returns technical specifications and partner offers with prices, how to present completion options, and what to do if booking_link is missing. No contradictions.

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 comprehensive yet well-structured. It starts with the core function, then details the output, handling of links, partner selection, exclusions, and a fallback. Every sentence is useful and efficiently organized.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (specification and partner_offers with prices) and mentions product_url/booking_link. It could be slightly more detailed about the fields in specification, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by emphasizing required parameters (make, model, year), excluding VIN/ECV, and noting optional engine details. This reinforcement helps avoid misuse.

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 states that the tool finds batteries suitable for a specific vehicle (make, model, year, optionally engine) and distinguishes itself from general battery search by emphasizing vehicle fitment. The verb 'recommend_battery' is well-supported with details on returns and usage.

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 description explicitly tells when to use the tool (customer has vehicle parameters) and when not (if parameters unknown, recommend photo reservation via get_partners). It also advises against using VIN/ECV and instructs how to handle partner offers, including fallback behavior for missing booking_link.

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