Tesla Monthly Summary

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, and it does disclose derivation semantics that matter for interpreting results: drive kWh is estimated from range-drop, charge kWh from sessions, vampire kWh from parked drain, and Wh/km is computed from driving kWh only so efficiency is not contaminated. It omits auth/permission needs, cost, and side-effect profile, so it is not complete, but the estimation methodology is unusually substantive.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a scannable bulleted breakdown of the three categories, with the Wh/km caveat last. Every line carries information; only the parenthetical Chinese labels are arguably redundant, which keeps it just under 5.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and both parameters are schema-documented. Given the tool's semantic complexity, the description supplies the crucial unit-definition context needed to use the output correctly; only cross-tool routing is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (car_id default resolution, months default/max) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: a monthly driving summary broken into three named energy categories, each with its source. An agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as tesla_monthly_report and generate_monthly_driving_report.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the month-counting parameter, but the description never says when to prefer this over tesla_monthly_report, tesla_drives, or tesla_vampire_drain, nor any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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