Diagnostico de neumaticos

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the exclusion of pressures, the 7-day cache, and the verified BMW anomaly where an empty structure and zero values are not genuine measurements. This meaningfully informs interpretation of results.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the returned data categories, then gives the important exclusion, then adds caveats about reliability and caching. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the key remaining context an agent needs: what data is included, what is explicitly excluded, where to get that excluded data, known empty-response behavior, and cache freshness. Nothing critical is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The schema already covers the empty parameter set completely, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented 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 names a specific resource (tyre diagnosis) and lists the concrete data categories returned: wear, defects, dimensions, mounting/manufacturing dates, season, runflat, and tread. It further differentiates itself by explicitly stating it does NOT return pressures and pointing to the telematics container for those.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool for pressure data and where those values come from instead. The BMW warning provides condition-specific guidance: if the vehicle is a BMW, an empty structure with zeros should be treated as missing measurements, not real values.

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