Check Daily Quest

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the deterministic hash-of-date selection mechanism and the status enum values, which is real behavioral context. However, it doesn't state whether it's read-only, whether it triggers any mutation (e.g. marking a quest started), or whether it consumes a daily check-in.

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 front-loaded sentences. The mechanism detail is directly useful for understanding why the result is stable within a day.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. The deterministic-selection rule is the key non-obvious fact and is included. Missing side effects and sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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 car_id, including the default resolution behavior (TESLA_CAR_ID env or first car). The description adds nothing about 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?

States a specific verb+resource: checks today's daily driving quest and its progress. The mechanism sentence clarifies the resource further. It doesn't differentiate from the closest sibling (check_driving_achievements), which is a conceptually adjacent gamification tool, so it falls 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. An agent cannot tell whether this overlaps with check_driving_achievements or how quests differ from achievements. No prerequisites or context is provided.

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