Get charge-now

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the M2M response typically carries only the last sync timestamp rather than an active/inactive boolean, plus the exact endpoint and required scope. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core state is stated first, followed by the key behavioral caveat, then endpoint and scope in a compact parenthetical. Every element earns its place.

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 getter with optional parameters, the schema covers all inputs and an output schema exists. The description supplies the endpoint, auth scope, and the unusual timestamp-only payload behavior. The only slight gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when an active/inactive boolean might be present, but this is minor.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing the vehicle in the endpoint path, but the schema already documents raw, vin, and delegated_account_id adequately.

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 names the resource precisely: "Charge-now override state," with the M2M endpoint spelled out. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_global_charge_timer and get_target_soc by focusing on the charge-now override, though it does not explicitly mention those siblings.

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 endpoint and scope hint at direct M2M use, and the description implies when the tool is relevant by naming the exact override state, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparisons. Usage context is present but mostly implied.

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