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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description clarifies a key behavioral nuance: the absence of a marker in a grid row means 'not tracked' and not that maintenance is dispensable. It also explains that symbols and labels are exact replicas, which helps set expectations for output formatting.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds important clarifications about output semantics. It is informative without being verbose, striking a good balance between detail and brevity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description provides useful context about the expected output: sections in manual order, exact labels, and the meaning of missing km markers. This helps an agent anticipate the data structure and interpret results correctly, though it does not specify response format details.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (fipeId and ano), covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific details, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: providing scheduled maintenance per km for a version and model-year, with a specific focus on faithfully replicating the owner's manual. It distinguishes itself from other car-related tools by describing its exact output nature (manual replica) and unique semantics.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains output interpretation (e.g., km without mark means not tracked) but does not mention selection criteria or contrasts with sibling tools like maintenance-related or general car data tools.

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