vehicles_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination, default filters (e.g., whether inactive vehicles are included by default), authentication requirements, company scoping, or behavior around the companyId parameter. It only mentions filtering with active and search, which is surface-level.

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, dense sentence that efficiently packs the key information: what is returned, the structure of nextExpiry, and the filters. The nested parenthetical is somewhat lengthy, but every part contributes value and the sentence is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Description covers the return fields (nextExpiry, counts) and filters (active, search), but omits base vehicle fields (e.g., plate, make, model, driver, VIN) that are implied as searchable and likely returned. It also does not mention pagination, default sorting, or how companyId affects the list, leaving an agent to guess about list size and default behavior.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'search' parameter by specifying that it matches plate, make, model, driver, and VIN, which the schema does not provide. It also mentions 'active' as a filter, although the schema already describes it. With schema coverage at 67%, this extra detail on search significantly improves parameter understanding.

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?

Description states 'Vehicles of the company' and details per-vehicle fields (nextExpiry, counts), making it unambiguous that this tool lists vehicles. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vehicles_get (single vehicle) and expiries_list (expiries only) by focusing on company vehicles with expiry summaries.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool is for viewing company vehicles with expiry status, and mentions filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident from the description and sibling names.

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