Get Vehicle Persona Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the concrete outputs (idle ratio, longest continuous drive, max speed, vampire drain), which adds real behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, or analysis scope/windowing behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the second sentence adds value by naming the concrete metrics. Slightly informal 'vampire drain'/'personality' framing but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description supplies the intent and the metric highlights, making it adequate for an agent to select and call the tool, though it gives no guidance on temporal precedence among the 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 100% -- year, month, car_id, and days_lookback are all documented with defaults and interaction rules (month requires year; days_lookback used when year/month unset). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (vehicle persona status) and enumerates the metric categories it contains (activity, fatigue, extremes, health). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like tesla_status or get_driver_profile, so it stops 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?

The line about providing 'structured metrics for an LLM to roleplay a "vehicle with personality"' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools (tesla_status, get_driver_profile, tesla_driving_score). Usage is only implied.

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