bosch_get_service_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source, the condition under which results are empty (standard Flow sign-in), and that the result explains why. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' and alerts users to potential empty responses, which is valuable.

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 a clear opening sentence, a contextual caveat, and a concise Args list. It is not overly long and front-loads the purpose. The caveat about EU Data Act and registration is necessary context, so every sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 simplicity (read-only, three optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, the data source caveat, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error handling, but the output schema likely covers this, so the description is complete enough.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, format (including the 'Nd' starting date format), and defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type/name/default fields.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the digital service book history for your Bosch eBike.' It specifies the resource (service records), the verb (get), and differentiates from sibling tools that handle activities, batteries, or bikes. Including 'dates and descriptions of work performed' clarifies the exact data returned.

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 provides context about when the tool is useful (service history from dealers) and an important caveat (EU Data Act API requirement, empty with standard sign-in). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings like bosch_get_activities or bosch_get_bikes. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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