get_vehicle_info

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' signals a non-destructive operation, and the field list clarifies it returns a snapshot (e.g., DTC count rather than DTC details). It does not discuss prerequisites like an active OBD connection or error behavior, but for a read-only info tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 entire description is one short sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the return contents. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 no-argument info tool with an output schema, the description covers the main data categories an agent needs to anticipate. It does not add usage context or sibling differentiation, but those are largely covered by the field list and output schema; the remaining gap is minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about arguments. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is acceptable.

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 ('Read') and names a precise resource plus the exact fields returned: VIN, Check Engine/MIL state, DTC count, and OBD-II protocol. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_dtc (actual codes) and get_connection_status (connection state), even without explicit comparisons.

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 a use case—fetching a vehicle overview/emissions status—but does not state when to choose it over read_dtc or list_supported_sensors, nor when not to use it. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer routing from the field list.

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