search_gumtree_cars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key limitation ('depends on Gumtree not blocking the request from your IP') and implies read-only search, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The coverage is partial; more detail on failure modes would be needed.

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-loading the primary action and immediately stating the output format. It includes the essential caveat about blocking without unnecessary detail. This is efficient 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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., whether radius requires location), pagination, result ordering, or potential error scenarios. An agent may correctly call it for a simple query but lacks guidance for complex or edge-case usage.

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 each parameter (query, limit, radius, location, minPrice, maxPrice) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only notes the output fields, which do not relate to parameter usage. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search'), the resource ('Gumtree.com.au'), and the domain ('cars'), and specifies the output fields (price, title, location, link). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific site, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_facebook_cars or search_all_cars.

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 gives context (native, FOSS, no paid API) and a caveat (best-effort, may be blocked), but it does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling search tools (search_cars, search_facebook_cars, search_all_cars). No explicit usage guidance or exclusions are provided.

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