get_witzense_obd_faults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It states the core purpose without fluff. However, it is under-specified, which is a trade-off; the conciseness is good but at the expense of necessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required time range, the meaning of optional filters, or the response structure. The agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The schema provides names and types but no semantics (e.g., what 'imeis' or 'account' mean, how time formats are expected). The description adds no value in explaining parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving OBD fault codes reported by devices. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OBD fault codes'), and the context of devices is implied. It distinguishes from siblings like get_witzense_obd_data by focusing on fault codes specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_witzense_obd_data or get_witzense_device. The description does not mention any prerequisites, time range requirements, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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