kia_vehicle_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: cached data may be stale, syncDate advances on every read (so it never proves change), seat heatVentType/heatVentLevel encoding is UNVERIFIED, and an absent seat block does not mean the car lacks heated seats. This materially prevents misuse.

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 long and dense, but it front-loads the core purpose ('CACHED status') and every sentence carries a caveat or clarification that prevents incorrect agent behavior. It could be trimmed slightly (e.g., the airTempRange/seatHeatCoolOption implementation detail), but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics. It covers what fields appear, the meaning of absent climate/seat blocks, EV ignition naming, and what include_raw returns. It also addresses the freshness limitation and data reliability, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 adds value by elaborating on include_raw ('untrimmed status block (battery/EV detail, doors, tyres, …)'), which is not in the schema. It does not discuss vehicle_key further, but the schema already covers it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the vehicle's CACHED status') and names the concrete fields (door lock, ignition, remote-climate block). It explicitly contrasts itself with kia_refresh_status by highlighting cached vs. fresh data, so an agent can distinguish siblings immediately.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use kia_refresh_status first when freshness matters' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also instructs when to pass include_raw, and warns about interpreting seat data, making the call context clear.

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