search_vehicles

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 adds value by specifying that it 'Returns a list of available cars with pricing,' which clarifies the output format. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds output information in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and return value, with zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 complexity of 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or usage constraints. For a search tool with rich parameter schema but no other structured data, it should do more to compensate for missing annotations and output schema.

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'dates, locations, and preferences,' which aligns with parameters like pickup/dropoff and vehicle_class. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format insights.

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 specific action ('Search for available vehicles'), the resource ('at Hertz'), and the scope ('for specific dates, locations, and preferences'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_vehicle_details' or 'create_reservation' by focusing on availability search rather than reservation management or detailed vehicle information.

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 context through 'Search for available vehicles... for specific dates, locations, and preferences,' suggesting when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_vehicle_details' for non-availability information or 'get_locations' for location data without vehicle search.

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