bosch_battery_trends

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 explains that the tool computes averages and deltas, lists the metrics, and provides interpretive guidance (e.g., declining remaining energy indicates degradation). It does not mention destructive actions, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read-only analysis tool, the description is transparent enough.

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 well-structured with bullet points for metrics and a clear args section. It is concise yet informative, with no redundant sentences. Every part earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers input parameters, computed metrics, and interpretive guidance. No gaps are evident for this analysis tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: bike_id (optional, defaults to all bikes), period (options with default 'monthly'), and date formats for start/end dates. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 that the tool analyzes battery health trends for Bosch eBikes, listing specific computed metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on battery trends, while siblings cover activities, batteries, bikes, etc.

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 states the tool's purpose (battery health analysis) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. However, the context from sibling tools makes the usage clear, and the description is sufficiently specific.

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