Get a Korean accident & ownership record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context — that the record covers both own-damage and other-party damage in KRW — but says nothing about authorization needs, latency, or record availability/emptiness for the given car.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an action statement, so the structure is efficient but not maximally instructive.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the kind of data returned. The gap is the identifier's origin and format and whether a car without accident history returns empty versus error, which an agent would need to call this 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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema is silent. The description partially compensates by framing the input as 'one Korean car', implying the id is a Korean-car identifier, but it never states the expected id format or its source.

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 resource (insurance accident history and ownership changes) scoped to 'one Korean car', which is materially different from the inspection and model-listing siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling it is not, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for one Korean car' implies a single-record lookup keyed by an identifier, as opposed to the search_* siblings, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. obtaining the id from search_korean_cars), and no stated exclusions.

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