get_battery_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns data but does not disclose any potential limitations, such as data availability windows, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The mention of 'over time' hints at historical data but lacks behavioral detail.

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, efficient sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It lists example content (degradation, capacity, max range) but does not clarify the return format, time range semantics, or any exclusions. More detail would be needed to fully equip an agent, but the description is sufficient for a basic getter.

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 is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'over time' which loosely relates to the from/to timestamps but does not explain formats or defaults. The schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 'Returns battery health measurements for a vehicle over time' and lists specific data types (degradation, capacity, max range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery (likely current state) and get_vehicle_state, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_battery or get_vehicle_state. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts. No explicit usage direction is given.

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