Get parking-climatization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the endpoint and the returned data fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as caching, staleness, or vehicle-state prerequisites. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single focused sentence followed by a parenthetical endpoint/scope reference. It is front-loaded with the core semantics and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The combination of a clear description, 100% schema coverage, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and an output schema covers invocation needs well. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing guidance, but that is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness gap for calling the 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 every parameter (raw, vin, delegated_account_id) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the 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 specific resource (parking climatization) and enumerates the exact data it exposes: running status, runtime left, seat/steering-wheel heating intensities, and ventilation. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_parking_climate_timer or get_pre_cleaning, whose resources are different.

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 the tool: whenever current parking-climate/preconditioning status is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_parking_climate_timer or get_pre_cleaning, leaving usage routing to inference.

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