Sound the horn briefly

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the horn is audible to everyone around the car, it is a short signal, and success is verified by the car reporting back. This goes beyond the idempotent/non-destructive hints already present.

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?

Two concise sentences carry all essential information: action, side effect, preferred alternative, and verification. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 optional parameter, full schema coverage, output schema, and supporting annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage criteria, behavioral consequences, and confirmation of the action.

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 100% and the single 'confirm' parameter is already clearly documented in the schema, including the preview-versus-send behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Sound a short horn signal to locate the car.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from toyota_find_car, making the tool's role clear among siblings.

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 explicit guidance: 'prefer toyota_find_car unless the user asked for sound.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool versus the sibling alternative.

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