fipe_price

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 lists the returned fields, which is some transparency, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, the currency of the price data, whether multiple model years are returned, or error behavior for invalid codes. The 'Returns...' clause is largely a restatement of expected output rather than deeper behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place, though slightly more content (e.g., usage note) could justify a 5.

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?

A simple single-parameter tool, but with the sibling fipe_brands likely producing the code, the description omits the workflow connection and how the code is obtained. Return fields are enumerated adequately, yet an agent must infer the prerequisite step. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Vehicle model code' does clarify that fipe_code refers to a vehicle model identifier, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Fipe Code' title. However, it omits any format expectations, how to source the code, or validity rules.

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?

States a specific verb ('Look up'), an explicit resource (FIPE price table), and identifies the input as a 'vehicle model code.' The listed return fields (value, brand, model, model year, fuel) reinforce the tool's purpose. It is domain-distinct from siblings like cep/cnpj, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closely related fipe_brands.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling fipe_brands, nor on how a valid fipe_code is obtained (likely from fipe_brands). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow hints, leaving the agent to infer the lookup sequence on its own.

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