Get fuel data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses batch vs. per-vehicle fallback logic, vehicle and time-window caps, and rate-limit pacing. It also makes the read-only nature of the operation evident from wording like 'fetches' and 'history'.

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?

Every sentence adds operational value: purpose, defaults, batch behavior, caps, and rate limits are packed without filler. The description is dense but well organized and front-loaded with the core function before the complex fallback details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input defaults, scope selection, batch limits, per-vehicle caps, and caller pacing. It does not describe the return structure, but that is a minor gap given the strong input-side and behavioral context already provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter formats are already documented; the description adds meaningful behavioral semantics by explaining that omitting registration triggers a fleet batch and that wider ranges or a single vehicle trigger per-vehicle history limits. It also states the start/end defaults, complementing the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves fuel level and consumption for a date range, scoped fleet-wide or to one vehicle. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_vehicle_status, list_vehicles, and get_trips by data type and optional scope.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining the default 24-hour window and the meaning of omitting registration (fleet-wide batch) versus providing it (single vehicle). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the fuel-specific scope makes when to use this tool reasonably clear.

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