vehicles_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that by disclosing the per-vehicle derived fields (`nextExpiry` with status ok|due|expired and `counts`), which is valuable because there is no output schema. It omits pagination or default ordering, which is a gap.

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 two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then the returned structure, with no filler. It is information-rich but readable; some clause density comes from enumerating the status values and search fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly describes the derived fields `nextExpiry` and `counts`, and it documents the search fields. What remains incomplete is list mechanics, such as pagination, ordering, or default result limits, and the `companyId` override behavior, which matters for a list tool.

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 67%: `active` and `companyId` are already documented, but `search` has no schema description. The description adds meaning by enumerating the searchable fields (plate, make, model, driver, VIN), which compensates for that gap. It does not explain matching behavior (substring vs exact) or how the two filters combine.

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 and resource: listing the company's vehicles (parc auto), and it explains what each entry contains (nextExpiry, counts). It does not explicitly name the sibling vehicles_get as the single-vehicle alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 names the two filter dimensions (`active` and `search` with the searchable fields), which gives implied guidance on how to narrow results. It does not state when to use this tool versus vehicles_get or expiries_upcoming, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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