Tesla Charging History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only historical query and enumerates the returned fields (energy added, duration, battery range, location), which is useful signal, but it says nothing about permissions, vehicle-selection behavior when car_id is omitted, or data availability limits.

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, front-loaded with the scope and then the returned content; every clause earns its place. It could be marginally tighter, but there is no waste or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. What is missing for an unannotated read tool with many similar siblings is any differentiation or usage context, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 days, start_date, end_date, and car_id are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the start_date-overrides-days rule. The description only echoes the 'last N days' framing and adds nothing about the date-range or car_id semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Charging sessions over the last N days') and names the fields returned, so an agent knows this is a historical charging log rather than a live state read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as tesla_charges, tesla_charging_by_location, or get_charging_vintage_data, which is the main remaining gap.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g., a vehicle must be configured), and no routing to alternatives like tesla_charges for live charging state or tesla_charging_by_location for aggregated location breakdowns. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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