Get vehicle status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably well. It reveals that the data is a live snapshot, not historical, that location is 'last-known' rather than guaranteed-current, and that the endpoint is rate-limited to 60 requests/minute. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but for a simple read-status tool the key behavioral traits are exposed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and output fields, and the second sentence adds two crucial constraints (live snapshot, rate limit) with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 status tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the scope (fleet vs. one vehicle), the live-snapshot limitation, and the rate limit. It does not define a formal response structure, but the listed fields serve as a practical substitute. Auth and error details are absent, but this is a low-complexity tool and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because each parameter (ignition, vehicle_id, registration) is already well described in the input schema. No additional explanation is necessary to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specifies a clear verb-and-resource pairing: it returns current status and last-known location, with a concrete list of fields (ignition, speed, idling, odometer, fuel level, GPS). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as a live snapshot and explicitly contrasting it with history. The fleet-or-one-vehicle scope is also stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly states when the tool is appropriate: for a current, live snapshot of vehicle status. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'not history — there is no date range,' which guides an agent away from get_trips. It does not name alternatives like get_fuel_data or list_vehicles, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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