get_safety_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are per body-style variant, which is a behavioral trait. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but the tool is a read-only lookup.

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 sentences, highly concise, with the core action front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

While the output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks any mention of required input parameters. For a 3-param required tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should at least list the expected inputs.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain the parameters (make, model, model_year) or their formatting, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. This is insufficient compensation for the low coverage.

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 it retrieves NCAP crash-test star ratings for a vehicle, specifying rating types (overall, frontal, side, rollover) and mentioning per-body-style variants. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recalls or VIN decode.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this when the user asks how safe a vehicle is or how it scored in crash tests.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context signals and sibling names imply distinct use cases.

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