Look up vehicle brands and models

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so credit is for the added context: the two providers use different identifier schemes (string `value` slugs vs numeric ids) and each feeds a different tool, and years are Jalali. Not fully 5 because it does not say how large the catalog is, whether results are truncated, or roughly how the response is shaped.

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?

Four tight sentences with the critical 'call this first' instruction front-loaded, followed by provider-to-tool mapping and the query branch. No filler and no repetition of the schema text verbatim.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: brands-only versus brands-plus-models, plus identifier types per provider. It stops short of describing the actual result fields, which an agent must discover by calling.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by tying the identifier format produced to the parameters that consume them downstream and by restating the omitted-query branch. It does not add syntax guidance beyond the schema's own Persian/Latin example.

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 ('find brand and model identifiers') and scopes it to two named catalogs, 'BimeBazar's and Azki's', side by side. This immediately distinguishes it from every sibling, which are quote/content/insurer tools, and no schema opening is needed to understand what it returns.

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?

Explicit ordering instruction ('Call this before any vehicle tool') plus named downstream consumers: ins_quote_third_party and ins_quote_car_body for BimeBazar values, ins_azki_car_value for Azki ids. It also explains the branch behavior: no query lists brands only, a query returns matching brands and their models.

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