kia_vehicle_location

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data is cached and not a live fix, derived output only appears when coord.lat/coord.lon exist, and the raw fallback has unverified field names. This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps an agent set expectations about freshness and output variability.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the data source, the second clarifies freshness and points to the refresh sibling, the third explains derived vs. raw output. No fluff or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: data provenance, staleness, prerequisite action for recent data, output derivation rule, and the fallback behavior. There's no output schema, but the description itself sufficiently describes what the caller will receive.

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% — the sole optional vehicle_key parameter is fully described in the schema, including its default behavior for single-vehicle accounts. The tool description itself doesn't add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; there's nothing missing but also nothing extra to credit.

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 identifies the resource (the vehicle's last known location from the cached cmm/gvi read's `location` block) and explicitly contrasts it with a live GPS fix, which distinguishes it from any sibling that might report real-time data. It also names the source and the derived lat/lon/map-link output, 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 gives an explicit usage directive: run kia_refresh_status first for a recent location. It also implies that this tool is for cached last-known data rather than fresh data. It doesn't enumerate when not to use it or compare against kia_vehicle_status, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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