Get exterior

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is disclosed and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the M2M endpoint and telemetry scope as data-source context but reveals little else about behavior (staleness, failure modes, unknown-state handling), so it lands at baseline.

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?

One compact sentence with the component list front-loaded, followed by a parenthetical endpoint note. Every token carries information; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape is documented externally, annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the schema fully documents all three optional parameters. The only real gap is usage routing versus the sibling set, which leaves a minor rather than critical hole.

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 each parameter already has rich semantics: raw explains its VIN-redaction bypass, vin explains single-vehicle optionality, and delegated_account_id explains the third-party constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint context, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise resource — exterior state — and itemizes exactly what it covers (doors, windows, hood, tailgate, tank lid, central lock, tailgate lock, alarm). It reads as a noun phrase without an explicit retrieval verb, and it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like is_car_secure, but the component enumeration makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. The description does not say when to prefer this over is_car_secure (which plausibly overlaps on lock/alarm state) or the other get_* telemetry tools. The M2M endpoint and scope note is technical context, not situational guidance.

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