Get vehicle health

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that only domains with supporting data are scored, but lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid VIN), permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Two sentences, 18 words, front-loaded with key output, and no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (score and breakdown) and filtering. It misses mention of error responses but is otherwise complete for practical use.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only domains with supporting data are scored and that filtering is optional, giving context beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's output: overall health score and per-domain breakdown, with scope boundaries (only domains with supporting data) and optional filtering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dtcs or predict_maintenance.

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 for retrieving health scores but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provides conditions for when not to use it (e.g., for detailed DTCs use get_dtcs).

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