Tesla Charging By Location

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of whether the grouping returns per-car totals, what location granularity means, whether results are ordered, or any limits or permissions. A single noun phrase is far too thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though so minimal that the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 both parameters are fully documented, which covers much of the burden for a simple two-parameter aggregation. However, with no annotations and no routing guidance against the many charging-related siblings, an agent still cannot confidently decide when to call this tool.

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%, with both days and car_id fully documented including defaults and the TESLA_CAR_ID fallback, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already there, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 phrase names a specific resource (charging sessions) and a specific aggregation (grouped by location), which is enough to separate it from raw-log siblings like tesla_charges and tesla_charging_history. It lacks an explicit verb and never names those siblings, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools an agent should pick instead. The only usage signal is the implied notion that an aggregated view is wanted, which the agent must infer.

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