nhtsa_safety_ratings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data range (1990 to present) and that it returns vehicle variants with VehicleId, but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or error behavior. Since annotations cover the key behavioral traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crucial pointer to the detail tool and the rating scale/date range. Each 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like in more detail. It mentions VehicleId and variants but not the full set of fields or whether multiple variants are expected. For a search tool with three required parameters, this is minimal but functional.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are merely examples ('honda', 'toyota', 'ford'). The description does not add formatting, case-sensitivity, or value constraints beyond the schema. It only repeats the parameter names, so it adds minimal value over the schema.

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, and explicitly mentions the return of VehicleId and the companion tool nhtsa_safety_rating_detail, distinguishing it from sibling tools like recalls or complaints.

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 directly instructs to use the VehicleId with nhtsa_safety_rating_detail, providing a clear follow-up action. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or when alternatives like nhtsa_recalls might be more appropriate, though the mention of the detail tool implies a search-then-detail workflow.

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