Resumen de mantenimiento

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is a pre-formatted text block, pressures are compared against targets, and the result includes the date of the oldest data used, which signals data freshness. There is no contradiction with 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?

A single sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Bloque de texto listo para pegar en un prompt') and then uses a colon-delimited list to enumerate the exact contents. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the output format, the specific data points included, units for tyre pressure, and a data-freshness qualifier. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values further.

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 the schema shows 100% coverage by having no properties. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to explain argument semantics.

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 ready-to-paste text block containing maintenance information: mileage, CBS items with remaining km and date, tyre pressures in bar versus targets, and the age of the oldest data used. This is a specific resource plus an explicit deliverable, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_vehicle_status or get_tyre_diagnosis.

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 usage when a copy-paste maintenance summary is needed and even mentions the intended use in a prompt, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance about overlapping sibling tools. The usage context is only implicit.

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