query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the device stops sampling while it answers, and results are one row per line. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then prerequisite, then output shape and performance caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by noting the one-row-per-line result shape and the sampling stall. Combined with a high-coverage input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though return fields beyond row structure are unspecified.

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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents begin/end/group/limit/select/format/missing in detail, including units, ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("time-series query against the on-device log") and names the device, which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling energy_by_interval, which is also a time-series retrieval tool, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ("Use discover first to know valid channel names") and practical guidance ("prefer a few well-scoped queries"). No explicit when-not condition or direct comparison to alternative retrieval siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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