Health warnings needing attention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds genuine value beyond annotations by specifying the selection boundary (health-domain warnings only), the extra inclusion of the service countdown, and how to interpret an empty result. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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 terse sentences with zero filler. The scoping statement is front-loaded, the categories are compactly packed in parentheses, and the empty-result semantics closes the definition. Every word 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 low-complexity read tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential non-structural semantics: what subset is returned and what an empty response means. The only gap is an explicit pointer to get_health for the broader health picture, which is more a usage-routing concern than an invocation-completeness one.

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 single optional vin parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its optionality and the single-vehicle default behavior. The description contributes no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the entire 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 – active warnings from the health domain – and enumerates the exact categories (fluids, lights, 12V, service) plus the service countdown, with clear empty-result semantics. The 'Only' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling get_health, which likely returns the full health dataset, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 'Only...plus...' phrasing and the 'empty means nothing needs attention' line imply this is the curated, decision-ready subset of the health domain, giving a sense of when it fits. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no exclusion such as 'for the full health status use get_health instead.'

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