Get a Korean car

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds the return contents (specs, options, photos, price history, seller), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, auth needs, or missing-listing behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the agent gets, followed by the one constraint that actually needs prose (id formats). No filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields is the right level of detail and largely substitutes for the missing output schema. Only edge cases (nonexistent id, partial data) are unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds value by disclosing the accepted id formats (raw Encar id, 'kbc:<id>', 'kcar:<id>') that the schema's 'Listing id from search_korean_cars' does not mention.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details for one Korean listing') and enumerates the payload (specs, options, photos, price history, seller). The singular 'one Korean listing' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_korean_cars, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 usage (fetch details for a single listing, presumably after a search) and gives id-format guidance, but it never states when to use this vs get_korean_inspection/get_korean_accident_record or when not to call it. Usage is left to inference.

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