Get pre-cleaning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming the M2M endpoint/scope and the specific telemetry data returned. It does not add depth on edge cases or response behavior, but given the annotations and output schema, the baseline burden is lower.

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 compact single sentence plus parenthetical endpoint/scope. It front-loads the key semantic data points and includes no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 telemetry getter with an output schema, no required parameters, and fully documented params, the description is nearly complete. The only noticeable gap is the absence of any guidance about when to select this tool over climate/air-quality siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the three parameters with clear explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the {vin} route hint and does not otherwise supplement parameter meaning, which is acceptable since the schema already carries that load.

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 a specific resource (cabin air pre-cleaning) and enumerates exactly what the tool provides: running status, PM2.5/air quality index, last cycle validity and completion time. This is distinct from any sibling getter and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (e.g., get_parking_climatization, get_car_status, get_needs_attention). No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided, so an agent must infer applicability solely from the name.

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