oem_emc_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it address any side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. The description only lists return fields, which is marginally informative.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It lists OEMs and return fields efficiently. However, it could be more structured with bullet points or explicit mention of parameters, but overall it is not verbose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists what the tool returns (emission class, immunity level, BCI level, special requirements). It also enumerates valid OEMs. This is sufficient for a simple lookup tool, though details like output format or error handling are missing.

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% with two parameters fully described via enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter constraints, relationship, or usage tips. 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 retrieves OEM-specific automotive EMC requirements, listing specific OEMs and return fields (emission class, immunity level, BCI level, special requirements). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'automotive_emc_overview'.

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 the tool is for specific OEMs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'automotive_emc_overview' or 'emc_compare_limits'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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