get_consumption_since_charge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'returns' data, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential limitations, error conditions, or data availability caveats (e.g., what happens if the vehicle has never been charged). With no annotation support, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word. This is exemplary 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks detail about the nature and format of the returned 'energy consumption data'. It mentions the time scope ('since last charged') but does not hint at units, granularity, or possible absence of data. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool without an output schema that could clarify expectations.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter, vin, has a description), so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but that is acceptable since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('energy consumption data since the vehicle was last charged'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_battery (battery state) and get_charges (charging session history), making the purpose immediately apparent.

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 context for when to use this tool: when you need energy consumption since the last charge. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and the sibling list provides obvious alternatives for different data needs. This is clear context without explicit exclusionary guidance.

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