pup_list_car_numbers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds a small behavioral detail about the dependency on usesCarNumbers, which is useful context. It does not contradict the annotations, but the added behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond what annotations already convey.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('car numbers') and immediately provides the usage condition. There is no filler or redundancy; it earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential information: what it returns, for what purpose, and under what condition. It omits the response shape, but that is not strictly necessary given the absence of an output schema. The mention of usesCarNumbers is a key contextual detail that helps the agent decide when to call it.

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 description for school_id is fully covered (100%), including guidance to obtain it from pup_list_students. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but that is acceptable because the schema already provides sufficient meaning. The baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns the list of car numbers issued to a school for the account, and specifies the context (dismissal options). This differentiates it from sibling list tools like pup_list_students or pup_list_transportations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a clear usage condition: it is for dismissal options where usesCarNumbers is true. This gives the agent a specific criterion for selecting this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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