Get health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the M2M endpoint and required scope, which is useful operational context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response shape, rate limits, or the raw payload behavior described in the schema.

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 information-dense: it front-loads the core purpose, lists the specific health categories, and adds the endpoint and scope in a short parenthetical. Every segment earns its place with 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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool returns and how to invoke it. It could be slightly more explicit about when to choose this over siblings, but that gap is minor for a read-only, parameter-light tool.

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. The description itself does not explain the parameters, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for raw, vin, and delegated_account_id, so no further compensation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as service health and enumerates the specific data returned: days/distance/engine-hours to service, service warning, and fluid/light/12V warnings. This level of detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery or get_car_status, even though the description uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 this tool—when service intervals or vehicle warnings are needed—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The endpoint and scope details are helpful context but do not provide direct tool-selection guidance.

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