Whole price list, domestic or imported

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is free to add the details an agent actually needs: one row per trim, Solar-year dating for domestic versus Gregorian for imported, and currency units. The main gap is that pagination/truncation behavior (limit default 30, max 100) is left entirely to the schema.

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, purpose front-loaded, with zero filler. The second sentence is dense with three separate ideas (row granularity, year convention, sibling hand-offs) that could be separated for faster scanning, but nothing is redundant.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (one row per trim), date semantics, currency, and next-step tools. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without further inference.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds a unit distinction not fully carried by the schema: returned prices are in Toman while price_min/price_max are in million Toman — a costly mistake to get wrong. It also ties origin to the calendar used in the model year, which explains why origin matters beyond filtering.

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 with scope: 'List the market price of every car on ... front price list, filtered by budget or brand.' The 'front price list' scope plus the explicit hand-off to hm_price_history and hm_search_cars makes it distinguishable from siblings like hm_prices and hm_price_estimate without opening any schema.

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 questions ('which cars cost between X and Y', 'the cheapest and dearest of a maker') and names where to go next for history or search. It does not state when to prefer the sibling hm_prices over this tool, so the routing guidance is incomplete on the closest alternative.

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