nhtsa_complaints

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided by annotations, the description adds the important context that all three params are required by the NHTSA API, signaling an external constraint. The example further clarifies expected input format, though it doesn't disclose return structure or pagination.

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?

Three sentences and an example, no filler. The most critical information (verb, resource, parameters, requirement, helper tool) is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple search tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: required params, helper sibling, and an example. It stops short of describing response fields, but that may be acceptable given the sibling nhtsa_complaint_detail exists for individual records.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions exist for each parameter. The description adds a concrete example (make='tesla', model='model 3', model_year=2023) and reinforces that all parameters are mandatory, which aids correct invocation beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Search NHTSA vehicle complaints by make, model, and model year' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nhtsa_recalls and nhtsa_complaint_detail. It also includes a concrete example, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly communicates that all three parameters are required, preventing invalid calls, and points to nhtsa_models for finding valid models. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, this guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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