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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: the call does not wake the car unless `acordar: true`, which matters for battery/vehicle-state side effects. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences that are front-loaded with the return payload, followed by the side-effect caveat. No filler, though the terse phrasing slightly compresses the parameter guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned values, and the wake-state caveat covers the main behavioral risk for a read-only tool. The only real gap is the undocumented `account` and `veiculos` 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `acordar` well (toggles whether the car is woken), but `account` and `veiculos` are left entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (the car's current location) and enumerates exactly what is returned: latitude, longitude, direction, speed, and the active navigation destination. It clearly differentiates itself from generic siblings like tesla_estado by specifying the returned fields, though it never names a sibling tool 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when / instead of X' guidance, but the note about not waking the car unless `acordar: true` implicitly tells the agent when this call is preferable (a non-waking read). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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