Karnameh inspection centers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are per-city, include address and coordinates, and deliberately exclude booking or pricing, which sets agent/user expectations. Pagination and empty-result behavior remain unstated.

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 the capability, followed by the usage condition and the boundary note. Nothing is repetitive or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool this covers purpose, trigger, and the shape of the result (address plus coordinates) without an output schema. A small gap remains around whether the list is complete per city or paginated, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 parameter already documents that it is the city id from kn_cities with Tehran as 1. The description adds no additional guidance on the argument, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List Karnameh's walk-in car inspection and paint-check centers in a city') and states what comes back ('address and map coordinates'). No sibling tool in the list covers inspection centers, so the agent can route here without ambiguity.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants to get a car inspected') plus a negative boundary: booking and prices are not available here and the site handles booking. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative tool, but the exclusion is clear enough to redirect the agent.

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