energy_by_interval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the unit (Wh) and that output channels default to all discovered outputs, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or data freshness.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its unit, with the usage hint placed after. No filler, though the trailing 'etc.' is slightly loose.

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 4-parameter, zero-required read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and units but omits the meaning of the 'end' default ('s') and any indication of return format or time-range limits. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, so the schema already documents begin, group, and channels. The description reinforces interval grouping and channel selection but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema, and the undocumented 'end' parameter (default 's') is left unaddressed. Baseline 3 fits.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Energy consumption (Wh) broken down by interval') and names the scoping option (all or selected output channels), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like query or snapshot, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Use for today's hourly breakdown, daily totals, etc.' provides concrete usage examples that imply when the tool fits. However, it gives no exclusions and never names an alternative (e.g., query or sample_waveform) for cases where interval energy isn't the right call.

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