get_modification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned content (cut-over points: build date, chassis, engine, organization number), which compensates for the absent output schema, and "Describe" implies a read-only lookup. However, it says nothing about error behavior for unknown codes, whether one or many records come back, or locale fallback 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the explaining details (example code, return fields) parenthesized rather than padded into extra clauses. Nothing here is wasted.

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 three-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what it looks up and what comes back. The remaining gaps (unknown-code behavior, cardinality of results) are minor for a reference lookup tool.

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, including the D/C-prefix rules and language fallback. The description adds only the contextual detail that the code originates in a MODIF field, which is mildly helpful but not required to call correctly. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Describe") with a specific resource (a modification code from a MODIF field) and lists the exact content returned (build date, chassis, engine, organization number). It also grounds the input with a concrete example ("D2105"), making the tool unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the listed siblings overlap in domain.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this when it has a MODIF code in hand. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite call sequence, and no mention of what happens with an unknown/invalid code. The pointer to decode_vin/list_catalogues for the catalogue param is in the schema, not the description.

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