Get Tesla Robotaxi ride history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a 'recent' scoping constraint but does not disclose ordering, result limits, pagination, or what counts as recent, which would be useful behavioral context.

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, concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word adds relevant context, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional param and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It does not explain the relationship to robotaxi_ride_status or clarify the meaning of 'recent,' but the annotations and schema cover safety and the parameter shape.

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 description does not mention the only parameter, `limit`, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden per the rubric. The schema itself is self-explanatory for this single optional integer, but the description adds no semantic value beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('recent Robotaxi rides'), and identifies the source as Tesla's ownership service. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like robotaxi_ride_status, but the word 'history' makes the list-oriented purpose reasonably clear.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as robotaxi_ride_status or robotaxi_book_ride. There is no mention of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools.

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