Alternative models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the constraint of suggesting different models within the same category/price/body type and notes max_results default 4 with a max of 6. This is useful context but does not deeply describe return behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage triggers and a parameter note. There is no fluff, and every word adds value.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter constraints. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list of models, but the verb 'Sugere' implies it. This is adequate but could be slightly more explicit about the return format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_results with default and maximum, and the context 'alternativas a este carro' implicitly defines car_id as the reference car. Both parameters are meaningfully covered, though car_id is not explicitly described as an integer or its role beyond context.

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 'Sugere' (suggests), the resource 'OUTROS MODELOS' (other models), and the filtering criteria (same category, price range, body type). It also provides concrete example user intents ('recomende outros modelos' / 'alternativas a este carro'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_similar_active_listings.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool with example phrases, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools. This gives clear usage context but lacks exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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