Refresh vehicle status from the car

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and open-world reach, but the description adds real context they don't: the call physically wakes the car, drains 12V battery, consumes API quota, and is rate limited. That is exactly the side-effect/cost disclosure an agent needs before calling a 'read' that has real-world impact.

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 short sentences: the first states the action and the output analogy, the second states the cost constraint. No filler, and the essential behavior is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description defers to get_vehicle_status for shape. The cost/rate-limit disclosure is present; only a clearer when-to-use rule against the sibling reads is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Vehicle name, VIN or ID. Optional if the account has one vehicle'), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about the vehicle argument, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb chain (wake, fetch, return) on a clear resource, and it names the sibling get_vehicle_status as the shape of the result, which implicitly tells the agent this is the live-fetch counterpart to a cached read. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the two, so the distinction from get_vehicle_status is inferable rather than stated.

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 rate-limit and battery cost statements imply 'use sparingly, only when fresh state is genuinely needed', which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_vehicle_status or the other read siblings, so the routing decision is left to the agent.

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