Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_by_budgetC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'including financing assumptions,' which hints at backend calculations, but doesn't explain what 'best vehicles' means (e.g., ranking criteria), whether results are filtered or sorted, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format, how 'best' is determined, error conditions, or behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only search or has side effects. The high parameter count and lack of structured metadata require more descriptive context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds marginal value by implying that parameters like 'monthly_budget' and 'down_payment' are used together in financing calculations, but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or interaction details beyond what's in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the best vehicles on Carvana that fit within a monthly payment budget, including financing assumptions.' It specifies the action (find), resource (vehicles on Carvana), and key constraint (monthly payment budget). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_vehicles' or 'get_financing_estimate,' which could have overlapping functionality.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'search_vehicles,' 'compare_vehicles,' and 'get_financing_estimate,' there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this budget-focused search tool.

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

• search_vehiclesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns a list of matching vehicles with basic details,' which gives some output context, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key parameters. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines or output details. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its function.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and deeper parameter insights. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for a search tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description lists example parameters ('make, model, year, price range, and other filters'), which adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already fully documents all 14 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding significant value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for vehicles on Carvana by make, model, year, price range, and other filters.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (vehicles on Carvana), and scope (multiple filters). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_budget' or 'get_vehicle_details,' which would be needed for a score of 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_by_budget' (which might focus on budget constraints) or 'get_vehicle_details' (which might retrieve specific vehicle info), leaving the agent with no context for tool selection. Usage is implied by the search functionality but not explicitly stated.

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

• check_delivery_availabilityA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking availability and getting estimates/fees, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what happens if the zip code is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and outputs without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what to expect from the tool would improve completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('zip_code' and 'stock_number'). The description adds marginal value by implying that 'zip_code' is the primary input for delivery checking and 'stock_number' is optional for vehicle-specific queries, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as format constraints or examples.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Check whether Carvana can deliver'), the resource ('a vehicle'), and the scope ('to a specific zip code'), with additional details about what information is returned ('estimated delivery timeframe and any associated fees'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'find_nearby_vending_machines' or 'get_vehicle_details' by focusing on delivery logistics rather than vehicle comparison, location search, or data retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when delivery feasibility is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before or after selecting a vehicle, or if it's only for purchased vehicles versus general inquiries. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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

• compare_vehiclesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compare two or more Carvana vehicles side-by-side') and then lists the output details. Every word adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output content but lacks details on behavioral context like error handling or authentication. For a tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, it's minimally viable but could improve by addressing missing behavioral aspects.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'stock_numbers' clearly documented in the schema as an array of 2-4 Carvana stock numbers. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what stock numbers are or how to obtain them, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('compare'), the resource ('Carvana vehicles'), and the scope ('side-by-side') with explicit output details ('key specs, price differences, mileage, features, and value metrics'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_vehicle_details' by emphasizing multi-vehicle comparison rather than single-vehicle inspection.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for comparing vehicles but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vehicle_details' for single vehicles or 'search_vehicles' for discovery. It mentions 'two or more' vehicles, which aligns with the schema's minItems=2, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• find_nearby_vending_machinesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function but does not mention behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned results (e.g., list of locations with details). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and context without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, result format) and does not compensate for the absence of output schema, leaving uncertainty about the return values.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (zip_code, city, state, radius_miles) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based search, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Find'), resource ('Carvana car vending machine locations'), and scope ('near a given city or zip code'), with explicit mention of the purpose ('where customers can pick up their purchased vehicles'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_delivery_availability' or 'search_vehicles' by focusing on physical pickup locations rather than delivery or vehicle listings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context ('near a given city or zip code') and the purpose ('pick up their purchased vehicles'), suggesting it's for post-purchase logistics. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_delivery_availability' for delivery options or 'search_vehicles' for vehicle discovery, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_financing_estimateA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 describes the calculation purpose but lacks details on rate limits, accuracy of estimates, whether it requires user authentication, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. text). This is a significant gap for a tool with financial implications.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key inputs without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, error handling) and deeper usage guidelines. Given the financial nature and no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists key parameters but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining relationships between parameters or calculation logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Calculate estimated monthly payment and financing options'), the resource ('for a vehicle on Carvana'), and the key inputs (price, down payment, credit score tier, loan term). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_by_budget' or 'get_trade_in_value' by focusing on financing calculations rather than search or valuation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when estimating financing for a vehicle purchase, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_budget' (which might also involve budget constraints) or 'get_trade_in_value' (which provides a related input). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

• get_market_insightsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data types returned (e.g., average price, trends) but does not cover critical aspects such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is a significant gap for a tool that likely queries external data.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-focused tool, as it specifies the data returned. However, it falls short in detailing behavioral traits like data sources, update frequency, or limitations, which are important for an agent to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for make, model, and year parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the insights returned (e.g., price trends), but does not provide additional semantic context for the parameters, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get current market insights') and resources ('for a specific vehicle make/model on Carvana'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_vehicle_details or get_trade_in_value by focusing on market analytics rather than individual vehicle data or financial estimates.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for market insights on a vehicle make/model, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_vehicles or search_by_budget, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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

• get_trade_in_valueA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this provides an 'estimated' value, which implies approximation rather than guaranteed pricing, but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output format looks like. For a valuation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted space, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the 8-parameter complexity and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate purpose clarity but falls short on behavioral transparency and usage guidance. It's complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for confident tool selection without additional context about how the estimation works or what the response contains.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description lists key parameters ('make, model, year, mileage, and condition') but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Get an estimated trade-in value') and resource ('your current vehicle on Carvana'), with explicit parameters listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_financing_estimate' or 'get_market_insights' by focusing specifically on trade-in valuation rather than financing, market data, or vehicle details.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context through the parameter list ('based on make, model, year, mileage, and condition'), suggesting this is for valuation estimation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_market_insights' or 'search_by_budget', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_vehicle_detailsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what information is returned (specs, photos, price, availability) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, resource, identifiers, and returned information. Zero waste - every word earns its place. Well front-loaded with the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (auth, rate limits, errors) and output details. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (stock_number and VIN). The description adds that these are identifiers for a specific vehicle on Carvana, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific vehicle', specifying it's on Carvana and identifying it by stock number or VIN. It distinguishes from siblings like search_vehicles (which likely returns multiple vehicles) and get_vehicle_history (which focuses on history rather than specs/photos/price/availability).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when you need detailed info for a specific vehicle identified by stock number or VIN, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_vehicles (for multiple vehicles) or get_vehicle_history (for history data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• get_vehicle_historyA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While it indicates this is a retrieval operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a paid service. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context needed for proper tool invocation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. Every element serves a purpose: the action, target, and specific data components. There's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for its informational content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a read-only data retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional context but lacks important operational details. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally address response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. It's minimally complete for basic understanding but leaves gaps for practical implementation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (stock_number and VIN). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, which parameter takes precedence, or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve vehicle history report summary') and resource ('for a Carvana listing'), with explicit details about what information is included ('accident history, number of owners, service records, and title status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_vehicle_details' by focusing specifically on historical data rather than current specifications.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context (when researching a Carvana vehicle's background) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vehicle_details' or 'get_market_insights'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is most appropriate versus other vehicle information tools.

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