List Vehicle Standards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read against an open dataset. The description adds the useful detail that each entry comes with a description, but says nothing about whether the list is paginated, how it relates to vehicles/routes, or whether the labels are locale-dependent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the inline examples are the most valuable part of it. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the domain role of 'vehicle standards' — whether these are ticket types, fare categories, or vehicle attributes — is left unexplained, which is the main gap for a tool this simple.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (lang) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description contributes nothing about language behavior, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List vehicle standards') and anchors it with concrete example values (YELLOW, FUN_AND_RELAX), so an agent knows exactly what it enumerates. It doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling list_* tools, but since those cover different resources (tariffs, seat classes, carriers) the resource name already distinguishes it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives, so usage is only implied: call this to resolve standard codes into their descriptions. An agent can infer it is the lookup for values seen elsewhere, but the description never says so.

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