Get charge-locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needed to add value beyond those. It does: it explains that over M2M the response is a settings record with typically just an id and utc0 flag, that missing coordinates are expected rather than a failure, and it lists the exact endpoint and OAuth scope.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key caveat about settings-record behavior, then packs the endpoint and scope into a parenthetical. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a read-only tool with zero required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and a provided output schema, the description adds the one crucial non-obvious fact: the response shape over M2M differs from what the name suggests. The endpoint and scope complete the operational picture.

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%, so the three parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond referencing the VIN in the endpoint path, which is acceptable given the schema carries the burden.

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 identifies a specific resource ('configured charge locations') and the endpoint path, and clarifies that it is not a list of addresses. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the tool name and endpoint make the action clear, and it distinguishes itself from a coordinate-lookup expectation.

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 implies when to use it by explaining that finding no coordinates is normal, and it gives the M2M endpoint and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a sibling like get_is_at_charge_location or plan_cheapest_charge, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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