analyze_land_vehicle

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are paged one section per call, axle span reflects mounting origins rather than tyre-centre track, and multi-body vehicles stay separate. Those interpretation caveats are exactly what prevents an agent from misreading output. The trailing 'Read-only' merely echoes the annotation but is harmless rather than contradictory.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus section/paging model are front-loaded. The paragraph is somewhat run-on and packs caveats into the same block, but every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter, read-only analysis tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, alternatives, paging model and known limitations. Parameter-level defaults and return shape are correctly left to the schema/output schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a behavioral rule not obvious from the schema: one section per call with paging, which clarifies how section, limit and offset interact. It stops short of explaining wheel_roles/exclude_wheel_ids or the forward-vector semantics, leaving that to 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?

Specific verb (measure) plus resource (saved land vehicle or land draft) and an enumeration of what gets measured: body-local axles, wheelbase, mounts, light axes, controls, equipment. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling analyze_vehicle by scope ('general part audits of boats use analyze_vehicle'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete entry points ('references from find_land_vehicles or your own draft before editing') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it (boat/part audits → analyze_vehicle). It also states where the tool stops being sufficient ('suspension, steering sweep and mesh fit still need game checks'), which is a real when-not caveat.

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