Combustible: deposito, repostajes y consumo

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral caveats: measurement uncertainty, OBFCM being a frozen lifetime figure rather than current consumption, and a shared 12-hour container cache. These go well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: first the core fuel data, then the OBFCM caveat, then the cache behavior. No redundant filler.

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?

The description covers all important aspects of the tool's output and caveats, including measurement error and data freshness. The output schema exists, so return-value details are already structured. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly specifies the tool's resource: fuel tank percentage and liters, range, refuels, and real consumption. It is far from a tautology and the detail about OBFCM consumption distinguishes it from generic vehicle status tools.

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 makes the tool's domain unmistakably clear: fuel status, refuels, and consumption. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use when', but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling vehicle-data tools.

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