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

Annotations declare a non-destructive idempotent mutation, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: location is OFF by default, enabling requires owner action outside this tool, and when on the coordinates are fetched live and never stored—only a lookup log. This privacy/storage behavior is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs to answer user follow-ups.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (owner-only enable path, default-off state, live fetch with no coordinate storage). The storage/logging detail is slightly tangential to invocation but still earns its place by supporting user-facing explanations.

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-boolean, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the default state, the ownership constraint, the link returned on enable, and the storage policy. The only gap is what a successful disable returns (confirmation shape), which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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% and the boolean already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that setting the flag true does not itself enable sharing but instead yields an owner-only link, which changes how an agent should interpret and act on the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn car location sharing off,' which tells an agent exactly what state change happens. It also clarifies the asymmetric enable path ('this tool returns that link'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_privacy_settings. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Clear context is given for the primary use case (user wants location sharing disabled) and for the enable case (owner must do it via AskMyEV setup or Account page, and this tool just returns the link). The parameter description reinforces the guardrail: 'true only if the user explicitly asked to enable location.' No explicit 'use get_privacy_settings to read current state' pointer, which keeps it from a 5.

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