autotrader_dealer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the data is credential-free public data sourced from Autotrader's server-rendered page, implies a read-only operation, and notes the limitation that only the first page of inventory is returned. This adds meaningful context beyond just saying 'get profile'.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the purpose, detail the return value, and then note the data source. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or padding.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return values (normalized profile, inventory summaries, total listing count) and the data source, and notes the first-page limitation. However, it does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., invalid id) or whether further pages can be retrieved, leaving minor gaps.

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 100% coverage for the single `id` parameter, describing it as the numeric path segment of a /car-dealers/{id} URL. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Autotrader dealer profile'). It enumerates the exact return fields (name, phone, address, rating, website, inventory, total listing count), making it distinct from sibling tools like autotrader_search and autotrader_vehicle.

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 a clear context (fetch a dealer profile by id) and notes it is credential-free public data, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Compared to siblings, there is no explicit guidance on choosing between autotrader_dealer, autotrader_search, or autotrader_vehicle, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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