Tesla Location History

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully explains the clustering/proximity-grouping behavior and that output is time-at-cluster, but says nothing about permissions, empty-data behavior, or result ordering. Adds genuine behavioral value beyond the schema while leaving gaps.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core identity ('where the car has been') is front-loaded and the mechanism follows immediately.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and params are fully covered in the schema. The description covers the computation adequately, though it omits the days-vs-start_date override nuance and any routing guidance among similar location tools.

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 four parameters (days, car_id, start_date, end_date) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, hitting the baseline.

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 concrete verb and resource ('where the car has been', 'top locations by time spent') plus the mechanism ('groups positions by proximity'). Clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as tesla_top_destinations or tesla_charging_by_location, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus tesla_top_destinations, tesla_charging_by_location, or tesla_state_history. There is no stated precondition or exclusion, so the agent must infer selection 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.