Get availability

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is an M2M endpoint, requires the 'pdp-telemetry/availability' scope, and exposes the raw flag behavior (even carrying VIN when redaction is on, though that detail lives in the schema rather than the description itself).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core meaning, then the endpoint and scope. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 a rich output schema present, complete parameter descriptions in the input schema, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description only needed to supply the operational essentials (endpoint, scope, and meaning of the fields it returns), all of which are present.

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 the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds field semantics (availabilityStatus, usageMode) and the endpoint template, but does not need to compensate for parameter docs since the schema already documents raw, vin, and delegated_account_id fully.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves 'Vehicle availability' with the concrete fields 'availabilityStatus and usageMode (whether the car is currently reachable/awake)'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_car_status or polestar_status, but the parenthetical makes the availability semantics unmistakable.

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?

The description gives clear context: this checks whether a car is reachable/awake, and it identifies the exact M2M endpoint and required OAuth scope. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives among the many sibling get_* tools, nor any exclusions.

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