lookup_plate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup operation and names the external site, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, network dependencies, or rate limits. The description is adequate but does not go beyond basic expectations.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose and output fields without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns (region, vehicle details, rating, reviews). The external source is specified. This is complete for a simple lookup operation.

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% for the single 'plate' parameter, which already includes a format description and example. The tool description adds no semantically new parameter information, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Look up' and names the resource ('Ukrainian licence plate') and source ('trustcar.info'), listing the returned data (region, vehicle, rating, reviews). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: recent_plates (listing) and post_review (writing).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of recent_plates or post_review, but the read/lookup intent is clear from the verb and data fields. The context is sufficient, but it lacks explicit exclusion statements.

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