get_vehicle_validation

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: it discloses the failure mode for an unknown run id and explains the meaning of export_matches and draft_matches (whether the exported file and draft are still the ones tested), which the annotations do not convey.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the operation and then the payload, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding either return content or failure behavior.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing. The description goes further by explaining the two match fields, which aids interpretation of the result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it is a '24-character run id returned by prepare_vehicle_validation.' The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read a validation run') and then enumerates exactly what the reading yields: the checklist with recorded results and evidence, plus export_matches and draft_matches. That content list distinguishes it implicitly but clearly from prepare_vehicle_validation (creates the run) and record_vehicle_validation (records results).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you read a run that already exists, and the 'fails when the run id is unknown' note signals a precondition. No alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to prepare_vehicle_validation or record_vehicle_validation, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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