vehicle.investigations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the chronological ordering and lack of filter support, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details about pagination behavior (beyond limit/offset) or what the investigation data contains.

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 concise sentences convey the essential information without any superfluous content. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and constraints. However, it lacks details about the return format or the structure of investigation objects, which would aid in completeness.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters beyond what is implied by common knowledge. This adds no value to the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists NHTSA open vehicle investigations in chronological order (newest first), and explicitly notes that filters (make/model/year) are not supported. This distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like vehicle.recalls or vehicle.complaints.

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 provides context that it's a chronological feed and that filters are unsupported, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like vehicle.recalls or vehicle.complaints.

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