search_all_cars

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 does disclose key behaviors: combining sources, deduplication, tagging by source, and good-deal flags. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements (siblings include auth_status and set_auth), rate limits, or any side effects, which are relevant for an agent to fully understand what calling this tool entails.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes the purpose ('one-shot'). Every phrase earns its place—no redundancy or fluff—making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is brief. It gives a high-level overview but does not explain the return structure (e.g., fields in results), how 'de-duplicated-where-possible' works in practice, criteria for good-deal flags, or whether authentication is needed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage; every parameter (make, limit, model, state, etc.) is documented with examples and defaults. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the 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 tool's action: searching both carsales.com.au and Facebook Marketplace simultaneously, combining results, de-duplicating where possible, tagging by source, and flagging good deals. It explicitly positions itself as the 'one-shot find me a car' tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cars and search_facebook_cars that target single sources.

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 says 'Use this as the one-shot find me a car tool,' which provides a clear use case for a comprehensive search. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives (e.g., when to use a single-source search or when to avoid this tool), leaving usage guidance mostly implied rather than explicit.

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