vehicle.recalls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a lookup tool, the description is honest but could be more transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('NHTSA vehicle recall lookup') and efficiently conveys search options and return fields with no unnecessary words.

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 lookup tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers search options and return fields. It lacks mention of pagination, multiple results, or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds grouping and emphasis on VIN precision but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 it is an NHTSA vehicle recall lookup, specifying search options (VIN, make/model/year, NHTSA campaign ID) and return fields. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vehicle.complaints, the name and focus on recalls make the purpose clear.

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 explicit search methods (VIN, make/model/year, campaign ID) and notes that VIN is the most precise. However, it does not advise when to use alternatives like vehicle.complaints or vehicle.investigations.

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