autotrader_search

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 adds valuable context beyond the schema: 'Credential-free public data sourced from Autotrader's own server-rendered search page.' This tells the agent no authentication is needed and explains the data origin. It also describes the normalized output shape. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the disclosed auth and sourcing details are significant.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second describes the output, and the third adds the credential-free sourcing detail. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 15-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, and that it requires no credentials. The schema handles parameter details. Minor gaps remain, such as pagination behavior beyond the schema's page description and rate-limit expectations, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for any of the 15 parameters; it mentions output fields (make, model, trim, year, mileage, pricing, images) but not parameter semantics. The schema already documents each parameter and constraints like 'Requires make and model,' so the description need not compensate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Autotrader vehicle listings.' It further specifies the scope (new and used car listings) and the output (normalized vehicle summaries plus total matching count), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like autotrader_dealer or autotrader_vehicle, which are likely detail-oriented.

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—this is the search tool for Autotrader listings—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like autotrader_dealer, autotrader_vehicle, or carsdotcom_search. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions. The intended use is clear enough from context, but the guidance 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.