get_tire_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns tire pressure' without stating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, what the return structure looks like, or that it supports time ranges and unit overrides. The simplicity of 'get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly disclose any behaviors beyond the basic result.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it is arguably too minimal, omitting useful context about time range and units, but that is a completeness issue rather than conciseness. It earns a 4 for being efficient and clear.

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 has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the full context (e.g., that it can return historical data via from/to, uses default VIN, and supports unit override). It does not. The description only covers the basic output and leaves ambiguity about current vs. historical pressure. Without annotations, this is insufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its four optional parameters, providing descriptions for 'to', 'vin', 'from', and 'pressure_format'. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description itself adds no parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline is appropriate.

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 function: returns tire pressure for all four tires. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools because no other tool in the group covers tire pressure. The phrase 'all four tires' adds specificity about the scope of the return value.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate (e.g., current vs historical pressure) or how it differs from other getters. This falls under 'no guidance'.

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