nhtsa_complaint_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds no major behavioral traits beyond that. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not disclose return format, limitations, or other operational details. Meets the baseline with the added provenance about ODI numbers.

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, front-loaded with the action, and includes an example. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the identifier and how to obtain it. A minor gap is not explicitly describing the return payload, but the tool name and 'get a specific complaint' imply full complaint details.

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%, but the description adds context on where the ODI number comes from (complaint search results) and provides an example. This helps the agent understand how to find the parameter value beyond the schema's format description.

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 'Get a specific complaint by its ODI number', which is a specific verb+resource+identifier combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nhtsa_complaints (search) and nhtsa_recall_detail (different resource type).

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?

It says ODI numbers are found in complaint search results, implying the workflow of searching first then getting the specific complaint. This is clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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