get_vehicle_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the response contents, making it clear this is a read-only retrieval operation. However, it does not comment on side effects, error behavior, or limitations, and the mention of 'URL slug' is misleading since the schema only accepts stock_number. This partially undermines transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and highlights key data categories. It omits unnecessary filler. The only flaw is the inclusion of the inaccurate 'or URL slug', which could have been omitted for greater precision, but overall it is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main use case by specifying the identifier and the expected response contents. It lacks details on error handling or the fact that URL slug is not a supported parameter, but for a straightforward get-by-id tool it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides a thorough description of the stock_number parameter (with example and source), giving a baseline of 3. However, the description introduces an unsupported alternative, 'URL slug', which is not present in the input schema. This creates confusion about accepted inputs and adds misleading semantics, warranting a penalty to 2.

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's function: 'Get full details for a specific CarMax vehicle' with a specific identifier ('stock number or URL slug') and lists the types of data returned (specs, features, photos, Carfax history, store location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_inventory (searching) and schedule_test_drive (booking).

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 implies usage: use this when you have a specific vehicle identifier and need detailed information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use search_inventory to find the stock number'), nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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