Tesla Tpms History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add a genuinely useful behavioral trait: data is only recorded during drives/charging, not while parked. This is real context that prevents misinterpretation of sparse results. It stops short of stating read-only nature or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output content, then the key caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the data-availability caveat covers the main trap for a read-only history tool. It is largely complete, though it would benefit from explicit sibling routing to tesla_tpms_status.

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, including the start_date override of days. The description adds no syntax or format detail 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 (TPMS pressure history) and clarifies the data source (TeslaMate positions table) plus what it reports (average and min/max pressures). The 'history' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tesla_tpms_status, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied through the 'history' scope and the caveat about when data exists. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as tesla_tpms_status for current readings, so the agent must infer the choice.

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