carsdotcom_search

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is credential-free, uses public data, and sources results from Cars.com's public search API, which conveys the read-only nature. It also details the normalized output shape, adding value beyond the tool name and schema.

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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds return details, and the third adds source/access context. Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition, and the opening is immediately clear.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (normalized vehicle summaries with listed fields and total count) and provides source context. It does not mention whether parameters are all optional, but the schema indicates no required fields, and the description covers the key functional aspects for a search 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters, including allowed stock_type values and page default. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool searches Cars.com vehicle listings and specifies the types of listings (new and used) plus the exact returned fields. It distinguishes itself by naming the specific source (Cars.com) and the credential-free public API, separating it from sibling search tools for other automotive sites.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to search Cars.com for new or used vehicle listings. It does not offer explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that the agent can select it appropriately among sibling tools.

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