read_dtc_information

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not explicitly confirm read-only/non-destructive behavior, session or security-access prerequisites, or any behavioral nuance beyond the raw service ID. Return values are covered by the output schema, so that omission is excusable, but the operational context is thin.

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 well-scoped sentence with the service identifier front-loaded and zero filler. It borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is tight and front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that needn't be explained. But with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and this being a diagnostic-service call, the description is barely adequate – it names the service and the one parameter's format but omits session/prerequisite context an agent may need to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does identify status_mask as a 'hex byte' that filters DTCs by status, which adds real meaning over the bare schema (default FF, type string), but it doesn't explain the bit semantics of the mask or valid values, leaving a partial gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (reads DTCs) and scopes it to those whose status matches status_mask. The service-ID notation (0x19 02) and 'DTCs' vs the sibling clear_diagnostic_information make the read-vs-clear distinction inferable, though the acronym-heavy phrasing keeps it from being maximally self-explanatory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like clear_diagnostic_information or read_data_by_identifier, and no exclusions or preconditions (e.g. required diagnostic session). It only restates what the operation does.

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