IvedaAI: LicensePlate

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

The description adds a response JSON note about 'status' and 'truncated'/'timedOut' flags, and marks required parameters with asterisks. It clearly labels DELETE and PUT as destructive/update operations, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. No contradiction; the added context (response format and required params) goes beyond the 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 organized by endpoint with a useful front-loaded note about response JSON. It is lengthy due to the many query parameters, but every line is informational and the format is structured, with no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description covers all four operations, their parameters, required fields, and a general response note. It stops short of describing the full return structure per operation, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema is generic (operation, body, file, path, query), while the description enumerates all query/path/body parameters per endpoint, including types and required flags. This is essential for constructing valid requests and goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly names 'LicensePlate operations' and enumerates four HTTP endpoints with clear verbs: List, Delete, Update, and Latest. This clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like license_plate_category or license_plate_target.

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 endpoint list implies usage (e.g., to delete a plate, use the DELETE endpoint), but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The required parameter markers give some operational context, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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