explain_vehicle_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying 'current evidence' and 'explain' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state side effects, permissions, or expected output characteristics. The output schema may compensate slightly, but the description alone is incomplete.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the outcome set immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose, but the lack of valid field_name values and the absence of guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools leave minor gaps. Overall, an agent could likely invoke the tool correctly with minimal extra 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's sparse parameter documentation. It indirectly references field_name via 'vehicle field outcome' but does not explain what field_name values are valid, what vin means beyond its obvious name, or how the two parameters interact. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('one vehicle field outcome'), and enumerates the possible outcomes (RESOLVED, UNRESOLVED, ABSENT), which gives clear scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_vehicle_history or lookup_vehicle, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description implies the tool is for explaining a single field's outcome using evidence, and sibling names provide nearby alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the intended use, but must reason about alternatives itself.

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