get_driving_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or what 'driving history' includes (e.g., trips, distances).

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get driving history for a vehicle') and adds essential scope ('within a date range'), making it easy to parse.

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's complexity (historical data retrieval with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'driving history' entails, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like data freshness or access permissions, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema fully documents all parameters (vin, start_date, end_date, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying date-range filtering, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema 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 states the action ('Get driving history') and resource ('for a vehicle'), specifying the scope ('within a date range'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_vehicles' (list vehicles) and 'get_vehicle_current_state' (current status), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_weekly_mileage' (which might overlap in purpose).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_weekly_mileage' or 'get_mileage_at_location'. The description implies usage for historical driving data, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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