search_vehicles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output includes total counts and representative examples, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, how 'refinement suggestions' behave, or any other side effects or limitations. It provides moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long and every word adds value. The first sentence states the core function, and the second clarifies the output structure (counts and sample listings). It is concise, front-loaded, and easy to parse for an AI agent. No unnecessary phrases or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but not enough detail to fully understand the expected return shape or how to construct effective queries. It mentions counts and examples, but does not clarify whether the response is a JSON object with fields for counts and arrays for vehicles. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description mentions fields like make, fuel, and condition, which aligns with schema properties, but adds no additional semantics about how parameters interact or are formatted. With 100% schema coverage, 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 identifies the tool as a vehicle inventory discovery tool with a specific output: overview counts and sample listings. It goes beyond a mere restatement of the name, though the verb 'Discover' is less specific than 'Search'. With no sibling tools provided, it cannot distinguish from alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies it is for browsing/overviewing inventory, but does not state target use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, some implicit context may exist, but the description itself provides no usable comparison or situational guidance.

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