Tesla Charges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether it requires auth, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond 'location, energy, cost breakdown'. An output schema exists, which offsets return-value disclosure, but the read-safety and operational context are absent.

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 tight sentences with the primary description front-loaded and the sibling distinction second. No filler, though it is on the sparse side for a tool with a rich sibling set.

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?

Adequate for a read-style query tool: it covers purpose, content dimensions, and sibling relationship, and an output schema fills in return values. However, with zero annotations and no notes on auth, read-only nature, or pagination, it leaves behavioral gaps for an agent to infer.

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 all five parameters (days, limit, car_id, end_date, start_date) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Detailed charging sessions') and enumerates the content (location, energy, cost breakdown). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tesla_charging_history by contrast (granular session data vs. summarized by process), which is strong sibling differentiation.

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?

It names tesla_charging_history as the alternative and implies this tool is for granular per-session data, but stops short of explicit when/when-not conditions. The contrast gives usable routing context but is not a full usage directive.

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