Search motorcycle and truck ads

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), it discloses the pagination contract ('keep paging while has_more is true; there is no total count') and the follow-up path to ba_ad, which an agent could not infer. It also states unit conventions for prices (Toman) and years (Jalali, with Gregorian leakage on imports). Auth and rate-limit behavior are not covered, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in sentence one, then progressively narrower guidance (units, workflow, pagination, sibling routing). No filler sentences; the terse parentheticals all carry operational meaning.

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 22-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: the has_more paging loop, absence of a total count, and the code field for chaining into ba_ad. It does not describe result item shape or the description_chars truncation behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 already 91%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining where valid values come from (ba_vehicles, ba_filters keyed to kind) rather than just restating field names. The 'kind' section concept and the motorcycle-vs-truck filter split are made explicit. Minor gap: 'transmission' has no schema description and is not covered in the text.

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 and resource ('Search motorcycle or truck ... ads on Bama') and immediately scopes the resource set (heavy vehicle, bus, machinery). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling that handles the remaining case: 'Cars are searched with ba_search.'

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?

Gives concrete triggering examples ('find a Honda scooter under 500 million', 'used Volvo tractor'), names prerequisites for valid filter values (ba_vehicles / ba_filters with the same vehicle_type), routes detail lookup to ba_ad, and names the alternative tool for cars. When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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