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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the route begins on the car's screen, and the car is woken if needed. These side effects are exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey. It still doesn't say what happens if the car is offline or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the parameter guidance and the side-effect note. No filler.

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?

Covers the action, the address-vs-coordinates choice, and the wake behavior, which is adequate for the core invocation. But with no output schema and two undocumented parameters (`account`, `veiculos`), an agent lacks full picture of targeting the right vehicle/account.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 5 params, the description must carry the load. It documents `endereco` (free text like the Tesla app), `latitude`, `longitude`, and the OR relationship between them, but leaves `account` and `veiculos` entirely unexplained, so two of five parameters remain opaque.

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 sends a destination to the car's navigation and starts the route on screen. Clear enough to distinguish from tesla_localizacao (reads location) and tesla_ir_supercharger (routes to a charger), though it never names those alternatives 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 format guidance (pass `endereco` OR `latitude`+`longitude`) and notes it wakes the car if needed, which implicitly frames when it is usable. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as tesla_ir_supercharger or tesla_localizacao.

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