list_inspections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination ('Returns up to 10 records per page; increase skip by 10 to fetch the next page'), lists the returned fields, and defines the scope. It does not explicitly state read-onlyness, but 'List' clearly implies a read operation. This is reasonable disclosure for a non-destructive list tool.

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 three tight sentences: purpose and definition, returned content, and pagination. No filler or redundancy. Each sentence adds new, useful 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the output fields, pagination, and scope. It does not explain error handling or the exact JSON structure, but for a straightforward list tool with one optional parameter, it is complete enough for an agent to infer invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The schema already describes skip, but the description adds operational detail: page size is 10, and skip increments by 10 for pagination. This goes beyond the schema's literal wording and provides actionable guidance for fetching all pages.

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 verb and resource: 'List inspections' and defines what an inspection is ('a vehicle's condition captured at a point in a booking'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bookings or list_vehicles. The scope ('for the API key account') adds precision.

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 context on when to use this tool: when you need inspection records, including their fields and pagination behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type is distinct, and the description explains its purpose well enough to avoid ambiguity.

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