vehicle_lookup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which already convey safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying returned data (dimensions, payload, pallet capacity, features) and listing 17 vehicle types. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, a list of types, and bullet-pointed use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (dimensions, payload, pallet capacity, features) and lists 17 vehicle types. It is complete for a lookup tool, though it could mention pagination or limits if applicable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'by type' and 'EU vs US' which align with slug, category, and region parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 looks up road freight vehicle and trailer specifications, listing specific types and return values (dimensions, payload, pallet capacity, features). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like container_lookup and uld_lookup.

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 explicit use cases in bullet points, such as finding specs by type, comparing EU vs US dimensions, and checking payload limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention specific alternatives, though sibling tools are listed.

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