IDM Warmwasserstatus

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Liest' (reads) is consistent with this. However, the description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide—it only lists output fields and the return type, without discussing auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 states the purpose first, then lists the delivered data points, and ends with the return type. There is no fluff or irrelevant detail.

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, has annotations covering safety, and an output schema (though not shown), the description is complete for the intended use. It lists all the specific B-numbers and states the JSON return format, providing enough context for an agent to select and invoke the 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 accepts no parameters, so the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't harm clarity.

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 states it reads the hot water and drinking water status of the IDM heat pump, and it provides a detailed list of the exact data fields returned. This specific resource (hot water/Trinkwasser) distinguishes it from sibling tools like idm_get_system_status or idm_get_temperatures.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and description.

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