autotrader_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context by stating the data is credential-free and sourced from Autotrader's server-rendered page, and it discloses the return type (normalized summaries plus total count). This goes beyond a generic 'search' description, though it stops short of discussing rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 earning its place: purpose, return value, and data source context. The description is front-loaded, efficient, and free of redundancy.

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 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides key orienting information: what is searched, what is returned, and that no credentials are needed. It lacks explicit guidance on parameter dependencies and pagination, but the schema covers those. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description's mention of return fields (make, model, trim, year, mileage, pricing, images) loosely aligns with parameters but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search Autotrader vehicle listings,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It further details that it searches new and used car listings and returns normalized summaries with specific fields, distinguishing it from autotrader_dealer 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 implies usage for searching Autotrader listings and mentions credential-free access, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like autotrader_vehicle or autotrader_dealer. There is no 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance, though the context makes the primary use case clear.

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