get_fuel_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific data fields returned but does not reveal any additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, side effects, or error conditions). With annotations covering the core behavior, a score of 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?

A single, compact sentence lists all four data points without any filler. It is front-loaded with the most important information (fuel level) and efficiently covers the rest.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully communicates the tool's purpose and return value. An agent can confidently call this tool without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter-specific documentation is needed. The description's mention of the routed destination implies that navigation context is automatically used, but since no parameters exist, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: fuel level, consumption, estimated range, and a binary judgment about reaching the routed destination. This is specific, names the resource (fuel status), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_navigation or get_truck_state.

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 implies the tool is for fuel-related queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Given its narrow scope, the intended use is fairly obvious, but the lack of explicit routing guidance leaves room for ambiguity.

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