vehicle.vin-decode

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the source (NHTSA vPIC) and return fields, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a read-like decode operation.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description lists typical return fields. For a simple decode tool, this is mostly complete. Could mention validation or error messages but not critical.

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 100%, and the description only reiterates the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., '17-character VIN', 'Optional model-year hint (1981+)'). No additional meaning beyond 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?

The description states 'Decode a 17-character VIN via NHTSA vPIC' and lists specific return fields (make, model, model year, etc.), clearly identifying the tool's purpose and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vehicle.complaints or vehicle.recalls.

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 clearly indicates when to use (to decode a VIN) and lists the data returned, making it obvious. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct enough that this is acceptable.

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