get_transactions_by_vin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read-only 'List' and explicitly describes pagination behavior ('Returns up to 10 records per page; increase `skip` by 10'). It does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens with an invalid VIN, which are notable gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives a use case, and the third explains pagination. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple list-with-pagination tool, the description is quite complete. It covers the input, the return shape via 'Same shape as list_transactions', and pagination behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or output field details, but the reference to `list_transactions` compensates. The absence of an output schema is offset by this reference.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful semantics for the `skip` parameter by explaining pagination ('increase `skip` by 10'), which goes beyond the schema's basic description. It also clarifies that the VIN must be authorized, adding context to that parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List wallet transactions for one specific authorized vehicle by VIN.' It uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource and filter. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it targets a single vehicle, unlike `list_transactions` which presumably covers all transactions.

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 provides clear use context: 'Useful for reconciling the financial activity of a single Tesla...' It also gives pagination instructions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the mention of 'Same shape as list_transactions' implies a comparison.

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