Car inspection prices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses that the fee depends on car value and time slot, that three packages exist, that currency is Toman, and that discounted/premium tiers were derived from the site's hourMode 2 and 3 patterns rather than a label. That last caveat is a genuinely useful data-provenance disclosure an agent could not get from structured fields.

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 core action is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by the input rule and then package/pricing context. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the hourMode parenthetical is niche but justified as a caveat.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return shape: a price per each of three named packages in Toman. The phrase 'at its location' hints at location-dependent pricing without explaining it, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 schema already documents the car_id/type_id+year pairing and the exact time_slot deltas (15% cheaper, +500,000). The description restates the alternative identifier pattern and adds only the general dependency on car value, so it stays at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: what Hamrah Mechanic charges to inspect a given car, broken down per inspection package. That is clearly distinct from the price-oriented siblings (hm_prices, hm_price_estimate, hm_price_list), although the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Give car_id, or type_id with year' tells the agent how to satisfy the inputs but not when this tool should be chosen over hm_price_estimate or hm_prices. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated as an explicit routing rule or exclusion.

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