lookup_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only nature clear through 'Retrieve' and specifies the response concept (canonical record plus audit metadata), but it does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid VINs, the nature of audit metadata, or any validation effects.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object and avoids repeating schema information.

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 with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return concept. It does not cover error cases or alternative selection, but those gaps are relatively minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 add parameter meaning. It contributes 'validated' to the VIN parameter and clarifies it identifies a single vehicle, but it does not provide format, length, or validation requirements. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to reach the baseline.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('current canonical record'), and a scope ('one validated VIN'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_vehicle_history and get_vehicle_revision by emphasizing current canonical state.

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 phrase 'current canonical record' implies this tool is for the latest authoritative state rather than history or source observations, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_vehicle_history, get_vehicle_revision, or list_vehicles. Usage guidance is only implied by the wording.

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