nhtsa_safety_ratings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it states the output includes vehicle variants with VehicleId, explains the rating scale (5 highest, 1 lowest), and notes data availability from 1990 to present. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by practical usage guidance, and a brief reference note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (vehicle variants with VehicleId), the rating scale, data availability, and a clear next step. This is complete given the tool's complexity and the presence of readOnly annotations.

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%, and the schema already describes each parameter with examples. The description only reinforces that the search is by make, model, and year, adding no new syntax or format details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter semantics.

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 searches NHTSA 5-star safety ratings by make, model, and year. It specifies the exact resource (NCAP safety ratings) and the scope, and it distinguishes itself from the close sibling nhtsa_safety_rating_detail by noting that it returns VehicleIds for subsequent detail lookup.

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 gives explicit guidance to use the returned VehicleId with nhtsa_safety_rating_detail, which highlights an alternative and a recommended workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other NHTSA tools, so it's clear context but lacks a full exclusion list.

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