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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it does not wake the vehicle, and it surfaces virtual-key pairing status because 'sem ela os comandos não chegam ao carro' — a real operational constraint for later command calls.

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?

A single compact sentence plus a short constraint clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every phrase carries information; nothing is padding.

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, listing the returned fields is valuable and the non-waking caveat is important for a read tool in this family. The only real gap is the undocumented 'account' parameter, which leaves ambiguity for callers with multiple accounts.

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% and the single optional 'account' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'da conta Tesla conectada' hints at account scoping but gives no syntax, default, or multi-account behavior, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista os carros da conta Tesla conectada') and enumerates the returned fields (VIN, nome, modelo, online/dormindo, chave virtual pareada), so the agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like tesla_estado, which also concerns vehicles, so the scope distinction is only inferable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Não acorda o carro' signals this is the safe way to inspect vehicles without waking them, which nudges the agent away from tesla_acordar for a status check. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given.

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