Get vehicle location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds meaningful context: the data is sensitive, should not be persisted beyond the user's request, and failures surface as 503 with a Retry-After hint. That error/retry disclosure goes beyond anything structured. It stops short of stating expected staleness or precision of the reported coordinates.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: payload, privacy obligation, error/retry behavior. Purpose is front-loaded. The privacy sentence is slightly advisory in tone but is not filler.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately names the return fields, and it covers the notable failure mode (503 + Retry-After). For a read-only single-parameter tool this is nearly complete; only the relative positioning against the telemetry sibling 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as coming from list_vehicles, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented one-param 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+resource and enumerates the returned fields (latitude, longitude, OEM timestamp when known), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_vehicle_telemetry, leaving a telemetry-vs-location choice to inference.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on error handling — 'retry only when the user asks' after a 503 — which is real when-to-use guidance. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_vehicle_telemetry, nor any preconditions beyond the vehicle_id requirement.

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