Prepare a human car enquiry

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds important behavioural context beyond that: it is an anonymous fresh lookup, the note cannot change price/certify condition/authorize a bid, the link embeds the note, and no seller contact, booking, reservation, bid, order or payment occurs.

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 dense and front-loaded, with purpose, sibling routing, identifier constraints and workflow boundaries all present. It is slightly long in the final paragraph, but every sentence carries relevant operational or safety 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 two-parameter preparation tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the workflow position, sibling alternatives, identifier requirements, note limitations, anonymity and all excluded downstream actions.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds meaning about how vehicle_id is resolved (slug resolved to canonical listing_id), that auction IDs must not be used, and that the note is embedded in the link and does not submit anything.

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: prepare a listing link and pre-filled WhatsApp enquiry for one car. It explicitly distinguishes siblings, naming prepare_part_handoff for spare parts and compare_vehicles for choosing between cars.

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 gives clear when-to-use context (endpoint of the public research workflow, after shortlisting), names alternatives (prepare_part_handoff, compare_vehicles), and states which identifier to use and which not to use (listing_id/slug, not auction ID).

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