rivian_get_user_info

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them – a signed-in Rivian session is required and an error is returned without one, no command is sent to the vehicle, and the response is readable text. This is the kind of auth/prerequisite disclosure that must live in prose.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and field list, then alternatives, then prerequisites in a logical order. It is a dense four sentences, but each carries distinct information (content, routing, auth, safety) rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the response contains (owner, per-vehicle fields, software version, update with release-notes link). Auth requirement, error behavior, and read-only status are all covered, leaving no gap for an agent to fill.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema. It correctly does not invent or discuss 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus concrete resource (account owner and each vehicle) with an enumerated field list (name, model, VIN, trim, drive system, colors, wheels, build date, software version, update link). This clearly separates it from siblings like rivian_get_vehicle_state and rivian_get_ota_status without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('identify the vehicle or the account') and routes to alternatives by name with conditions: rivian_get_ota_status for update progress, rivian_get_vehicle_state for live readings. Nothing is left to inference.

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