get_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (via 'Returns'), but it does not mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness, network dependency, vehicle wake requirements, or error implications. For a simple getter this is minimal but still leaves the agent without essential context about side effects or assumptions.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Returns'), and contains zero filler. It efficiently communicates the output without unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned: coordinates, street address, and saved location name. It could be slightly more informative about the format or conditions (e.g., whether the saved name can be empty), but it is largely complete for the tool's scope.

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 'vin' parameter is well-described). The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify how the optional vin parameter affects the returned location, but the schema already does.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the vehicle's coordinates, street address, and saved location name.' This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_vehicle_state, get_vehicle_status) by focusing specifically on location data.

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 implies usage: you would call this when you need the vehicle's location details. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the return types but not articulated beyond that.

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