vehicle_risk_score

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses rate limit ('Free tier: 30 requests/day') and output fields. However, it does not mention required permissions, side effects (none expected for a read tool), or whether the tool is read-only or destructive.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose + output, use cases, rate limit. No wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, output, and rate limit. It could mention authentication or API key needs, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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%, so schema already documents both parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds little beyond schema, though it reinforces the Chinese license plate context and rate limit.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get vehicle risk assessment score by license plate number'. It specifies input (license plate) and output (risk score, counts, etc.), making it distinct from siblings like query_vehicle_info which likely returns basic info.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'Use for fleet risk management, logistics risk control, or vehicle insurance assessment.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons to sibling tools like risk_assessment or query_vehicle_info.

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