get_carsharing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'finds' vehicles, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any additional behavior such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'currently available' means (e.g., real-time vs. scheduled data). It also does not describe the response structure or any side effects, leaving the agent with only the surface action.

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 a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and the filtering scope is stated efficiently. It is optimally concise for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about what the tool returns and any constraints. It implies a list of available vehicles but does not specify the structure, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple query tool with two optional parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need to discover empirically.

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 both parameters (query and fuel_type) are already documented. The description adds a slight contextual mapping by saying 'station, town or fuel type', which aligns with the schema's query filter options (station, town, address, model) and fuel_type. However, it does not enrich the meaning beyond the schema; it merely paraphrases the filter options. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('currently available CFL FLEX carsharing vehicles') and a scoping phrase ('by station, town or fuel type'). It fully distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_bike_sharing by naming the exact service (CFL FLEX) and the data focus.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies its purpose, it does not mention any exclusions or how to choose between get_carsharing and similar transport tools like get_bike_sharing or get_cfl_parking. The only contextual hint is the tool name itself, which is insufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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