search_by_vin

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

The description discloses that the search returns substring matches via UNION across kind-tables sorted by issue_date DESC, and states it's open for any active API key with no subscription required. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does well, though rate limits or other limitations are not mentioned.

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 efficiently written in two paragraphs, with no redundant information. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating scope, access, behavior, and alternatives. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 simple input schema (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear explanation of search behavior, sorting, and alternatives, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand and use 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining that the parameter is used for substring matching across kinds and that results are sorted by issue_date. It also clarifies the difference between substring and exact matching, enhancing the parameter meaning.

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 performs an aggregated search by VIN across all car-kinds, listing specific kinds. It distinguishes itself from per-kind tools by mentioning the scope is across all kinds, making the purpose very specific.

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 explicitly advises using per-kind tools (e.g., search_otts, search_sbkts) for exact full-VIN matches within a single kind, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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