Is the car closed and locked

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by clarifying it returns true/false and names any open item. It accurately reflects the read-only nature of the check without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core behavior first and then specifies exactly what is checked. Every phrase adds useful information with no 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?

For a simple read-only check with one optional parameter, an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and what security aspects it covers.

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?

The sole parameter, vin, is fully documented in the input schema with an explanation of its optionality. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage this is acceptable.

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 states the tool performs a true/false security check covering doors, windows, hood, tailgate, central lock, and alarm. It is specific about the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_car_status or polestar_status.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to know whether the car is physically secure and what may be open. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of sibling status or health tools.

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