Estado del vehiculo: kilometraje y CBS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description attempts to add a verification caveat about the CBS breakdown, but the phrasing is self-contradictory ('pendiente de verificar' vs 'verificado'), leaving the data trustworthiness unclear.

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 first sentence is concise and useful, but the second sentence is garbled, repetitive, and internally contradictory. It does not earn its place and undermines the overall clarity of the description.

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 zero parameters, a full output schema, and safety annotations, the description only needs to clarify purpose and data caveats. It conveys the core purpose but the confusing verification statement leaves important ambiguity about the reliability of the CBS breakdown.

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 parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to add beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 identifies the resource and payload: mileage and CBS maintenance reminders. It is not a tautology and conveys a specific read operation, although it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from get_maintenance_summary or other vehicle-data siblings.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_vehicle_basic_data, get_maintenance_summary, or get_fuel_status. No alternatives, selection criteria, or exclusions are mentioned.

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