Vehicle doors, windows and locks

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that lock state is pushed by the car when parked and can lag, instructing the agent to cite freshness.vehicle_reported_at. This is meaningful behavioral context that directly affects how an agent should phrase answers.

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: component list first, then usage scenarios, then the freshness caveat, then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and none are redundant.

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 with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers scope, usage, exclusion, and an important freshness caveat. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics could be added; the description appropriately focuses on behavior instead.

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 set of resources (doors, windows, trunk, hood, lock state, lights, rear-seat reminder) and gives example queries that pin down exactly what this tool answers. It explicitly contrasts itself with toyota_get_health, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It states concrete use-for cases ('is the car locked? are windows or doors open?') and provides an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Warning lights are NOT here; use toyota_get_health'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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