Hamrah Mechanic showrooms and inspection centers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond them: it discloses the returned fields (address, hours, cars in stock) despite there being no output schema, and explains that branch identity comes from an ad's `location`. Permissions or pagination behavior are not addressed.

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 zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the usage rule and the cross-tool link. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With only two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field summary and the integration hint with hm_search_cars, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as result volume or whether hours are localized.

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 both `province` (Persian name or numeric id, default Tehran) and `inspection_only` are already fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the province scoping and says nothing extra about `inspection_only`, so the 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 opens with a specific verb ("List") and a precisely scoped resource ("car showrooms and inspection centers in a province"), and names the return fields (address, hours, cars in stock). No sibling tool covers branches, and the link to hm_search_cars makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

"Use to say where a used car can be seen or inspected" gives a concrete when-to-use condition, and "The `location` of an ad from hm_search_cars names its branch" chains it explicitly to a sibling tool. It lacks a when-not-use statement or alternatives for other location-style lookups, so it falls short of a 5.

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