Car brands

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 only the fact that returned entries carry slugs usable by other tools; it says nothing about pagination, catalog size, or whether the list is the complete supported set.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing. Very little waste, though the second sentence mixes call-ordering advice with sibling routing in a way that could be slightly tighter.

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 one-parameter, annotation-rich lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, slug output, and next steps adequately. Missing only minor detail such as whether the list is exhaustive or alphabetically ordered, which is unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including Persian/English examples and the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('List the car brands Hamrah Mechanic knows') and names the payload the agent needs ('the slug the other tools take'), which distinguishes it from siblings like hm_models and hm_prices that consume those slugs.

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 explicit ordering guidance ('Use first when you need a brand slug') and names the two follow-on tools with their respective purposes, so the agent knows both when to call this and what to do next.

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