vehicle_lookup

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

The description fully discloses read-only behavior, error handling for unknown slugs (returns valid list), rate limits (25 req/day, 429 with retry info), and provenance details. This richly supplements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) with no contradictions.

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 structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing parameters, behavior, return envelope, limitations, and related tools. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: parameter behavior (omit vs provide slug, filters), read-only behavior, error handling, rate limits, return format (result, confidence, _source, citation), limitations, and related tools. No gaps remain for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds semantic context: omitting slug lists all, filtering by category and region, and provides example slugs. This goes beyond the schema by explaining usage patterns.

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 it looks up road-freight vehicle and trailer specifications, mentions 17 types, and details filtering by region and category. It specifies exact usage: provide slug for one record or omit to list all. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools to prevent misuse, only mentioning related tools at the end.

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 lists related tools and their purposes (e.g., ldm_calculator for pallet fit), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than directive.

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