Car specs and review summary

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: specs come back grouped into four named categories, and the review score/summary are AI-generated from web reviews and should be treated as opinion rather than fact. It stops short of describing response shape or size, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the prerequisite, then the caveat and the sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the grouping list is compact enough to earn its space by telling the agent what to expect in the payload.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the spec groups, the score, pros/cons, and web reviews. Combined with the single-parameter schema and the explicit prerequisite, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 slug property already carries the pattern, the example, and the instruction to source it from kn_specs_search. The description only reinforces the 'one variant' framing and the search-first dependency, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('Get one car variant's technical specs') plus the exact payload (expert review score, pros and cons, web reviews), scoped to a single variant. That scope word 'one' implicitly separates it from the list-oriented kn_specs_search, and the description names that sibling explicitly.

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 an explicit sequencing rule ('Use after kn_specs_search') and routes two adjacent intents elsewhere: prices to kn_price_list and used ads to kn_cars. An agent knows both when to call this and which sibling to pick instead for the neighboring tasks.

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