get_vehicle_details

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.