get_eco_score

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context (score range and contributing factors) beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data staleness or calculation basis. Given the annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key output (0-100 score) and immediately notes the inclusion of affecting factors. There is no filler or repetition; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains what the score represents and its range. It could benefit from a note on when to use it over sibling tools, but that falls under usage guidelines. Overall, the tool is adequately specified for invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters.

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 returns a 0-100 driving score for the current session, and mentions that it includes the factors that lower it. This is a specific resource ('driving score') with a precise range and context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trip_summary or get_raw_telemetry.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trip_summary or check_speeding. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when another tool should be preferred. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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