bosch_get_software_updates

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

Discloses that the tool returns historical update reports with details on components, versions, and timestamps. It notes the dependency on the EU Data Act API. However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or any other behavioral traits like error handling, but given no annotations, this is sufficient.

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: a clear summary, a note about data source, and a formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and limitations. It provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: bike_id (optional UUID filter), start_date and end_date (formats and defaults). This adds 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 the tool retrieves 'software update installation history' for Bosch eBikes, specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bosch_get_components by noting the data source (EU Data Act API) and that current firmware is available via components.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use and when not: 'This history comes only from the EU Data Act API; with a standard Bosch eBike Flow sign-in it is empty (current firmware is still available via components).' This guides the agent to use bosch_get_components for current firmware.

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