bosch_get_service_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the EUDA API dependency and empty-result behavior for standard sign-ins, which is helpful. However, it does not detail rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects (though it's a read-only operation).

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 clear sections: purpose, details, caveat, and parameter explanations. It is concise without extraneous text, and the most important information 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no required ones, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, parameter formats, and a notable behavioral condition. It explains why the result may be empty, which is critical for the 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 0%, but the description explains the three parameters: bike_id filters to one bike, start_date accepts YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM, or Nd (and defaults to all records), end_date defaults to today. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it gets the digital service book history for Bosch eBikes, specifying returned data (dates, descriptions). This is distinct from sibling tools like bosch_get_activities, which likely handle rides, not service records.

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 explains that service records come from the EU Data Act API and warns that a standard Flow sign-in yields empty results, guiding the agent on when the tool is useful and when it is not. It does not explicitly compare to siblings but provides sufficient context.

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