Porsche Service Calculator (Garage Kuhn)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content in detail - the complete plan with all work per service plus Zusatzwartung, original Porsche wording, page number and source - which matters given there is no output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the same content is stated twice, once in German and once in English, which effectively doubles the length without adding meaning. It is not fatally bloated, but the bilingual duplication is not fully earning its place.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with annotations that cover the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return-content details (full plan vs. calculation, source and page references). It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor room for authentication or retrieval-behavior notes.

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 parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'id aus search', so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the id identifies a search hit but adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it retrieves ('Ruft ... ab') one hit from search, returning either a full Porsche maintenance plan or a calculation. It ties itself to the sibling 'search' as the source and names what the fetched object contains, so an agent can distinguish it from search or the other porsche_* tools. It does not explicitly contrast with porsche_wartungsplaene, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'einen Treffer aus search ab' implies the intended workflow (call search first, then fetch a specific hit by id), which is decent implied usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no direct comparison to the sibling alternative 'search' or 'porsche_wartungsplaene'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it details returned content (next service timing/mileage, Porsche's wording with page link, following services, Garage Kuhn booking link with vehicle data, reminder with date/text/calendar file) and includes a disclaimer ('Richtwert ohne Gewähr').

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is long, bilingual, and somewhat redundant: the English sentence repeats a subset of the German output details and omits several specifics. Parameter guidance and disclaimer are interleaved, reducing structural clarity for a complex tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values; it does so in detail, covering next service, maintenance scope, links, and reminder contents. With 100% schema coverage for parameters and annotations covering safety, the remaining gap is minor: it does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling porsche_service_erinnerung or whether it creates a reminder versus merely including reminder data.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented with examples, enums, and constraints. The description only restates the alternative car specification modes ('modell', 'baureihe', 'plan_id') without adding syntax, format, or interaction rules beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Berechnet' / 'Calculates') and resource (Porsche service due next), including output scope: next service timing/mileage, tasks in Porsche wording, booking link, reminder. It distinguishes itself from a simple plan lister by describing computed results, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like porsche_wartungsplaene as alternatives.

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?

Provides parameter input modes (modell, baureihe, plan_id) but no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or explicit comparison to sibling tools such as porsche_wartungsplaene or porsche_service_erinnerung. An agent must infer that this tool is for calculating a service schedule rather than fetching plans or managing reminders.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the reminder date is computed four weeks before the next service, at latest one year for the annual service, and the output includes a calendar file with an alarm the day before at 9 AM. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and output details, so an agent can quickly understand the tool. It is somewhat redundant because the final English sentence repeats the core purpose already stated in German, but the structure remains efficient overall.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what is returned: date, title, text, booking link, and calendar file. It also explains the date calculation rule. It does not resolve the complex relationship among modell, plan_id, baureihe, and variante, but the schema descriptions cover those parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters thoroughly, including enums, formats, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score 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: it returns a service reminder for a Porsche, including concrete outputs such as date, title, text, booking link, and an .ics calendar file. It references the sibling porsche_service_berechnen, but does not clearly explain why an agent should choose this tool over that sibling beyond mentioning reminders and maintenance planning.

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 phrase 'Für Erinnerungen und die Planung von Wartungen' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to porsche_service_berechnen or the other siblings. The comparison to porsche_service_berechnen is ambiguous because it says 'same details' rather than distinguishing the use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds useful context about the data's provenance (Garage Kuhn AG service calculator) and its scope (Porsche Schweiz or Deutschland editions), but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination.

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 German sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, but the trailing English sentence is a pure restatement of the opening clause and earns little. One clear sentence would have sufficed, making the two-sentence form mildly redundant.

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, zero-required-parameter reference-list tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and the data source. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, count, whether the list is exhaustive), which are not critical to correct invocation.

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 enum parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Nur Pläne dieser Baureihe." with enumerated values). The description restates the filter as optional, which is mildly useful, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (listet) and resource (Porsche-Wartungspläne) and even enumerates the fields returned (Plan-ID, Baureihen, Zeitraum, Herausgeber, Generation, Varianten). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the compute-oriented siblings (porsche_service_berechnen, porsche_service_erinnerung) by being the reference-data lookup, but never names them explicitly.

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?

"Optional nach Baureihe filtern" tells the agent the filter exists and is optional, and the mention of the service calculator implies the plan IDs feed later lookups. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus porsche_service_berechnen or porsche_service_erinnerung, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: search returns a pre-computed result when the query contains km and first registration, and only hits are returned so fetch is required for full text.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then workflow guidance; every sentence carries information. The German content is restated almost verbatim in English, which is deliberate for bilingual users but is still duplication that costs some tightness.

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 single-parameter, annotation-rich search tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, special input behavior, and the follow-up fetch step. It stops short of describing the hit list shape or result limits, a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by showing a richer example query ('997 Carrera, 96000 km, 03.2009') and explaining that embedding mileage and a date changes the result type, which the schema description does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sucht Porsche-Wartungspläne ... nach Modell oder Baureihe') with concrete query examples, and notes that a ready calculation is returned when mileage and first registration are present. It routes the agent to fetch for full text, though it does not contrast with the sibling porsche_wartungsplaene or porsche_service_berechnen explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: search by model/series, and include km plus first registration to get the finished calculation first. It also states the retrieval step ('Treffer mit fetch abrufen'), establishing the search-then-fetch workflow. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives among the other siblings.

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