dealer_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses best-effort scraping and platform-specific behavior. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (invalid URLs, rate limits), whether the operation is read-only, or what happens when no rating is found. This is acceptable for a lookup but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then expanding on platform nuances and a usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. Highly 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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers the main behaviors and use cases. It implies the return values (star rating, review count, seller type) but does not explicitly define the output shape. For a tool of this simplicity, this is largely sufficient, but a clear return format would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'url' and 'name' are already documented. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the url can be 'any listing URL' and that name is echoed, but this largely repeats the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 states 'Look up a seller/dealer reputation' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes between carsales (scrapes star rating + review count) and Facebook/Gumtree (confirms seller type). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_listing_details and the search tools, giving an agent a precise sense of what it does.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Use before contacting anyone' and explains when it is useful vs. when it is less useful (Facebook/Gumtree private sellers). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a 'when not to use' exclusion, but the platform distinction effectively guides selection. A slightly more explicit reference to alternatives would push this to 5.

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