search_cars

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful spelling note about 'milage', but this is already in the schema. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe return format, though 'Search' implies a safe query. Adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief, relevant spelling caveat. There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and scannable.

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 schema handles parameter details comprehensively, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return structure or pagination behavior. Given the tool's search nature, the description leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive, making it minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all 17 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only summarizes filter groups (make, year, mileage, etc.) and repeats the milage spelling note, adding minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 searches used cars on Blocket, a specific resource and platform, and lists the key filter dimensions (make, year, mileage, transmission, color, horsepower). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_boats and search_motorcycles, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use for car-specific searches with vehicle filters, but it does not explicitly contrast with generic 'search' or the boat/motorcycle variants, nor does it state when not to use it. The reference to vehicle-specific filters provides indirect context, but no direct guidance on alternatives.

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