pvsyst_read_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: missing samples are excluded from observed energy, no resampling or conversion occurs, statistics use finite pairs only, missing pairs and coverage are explicit, power integration requires regular cadence, and comparisons verify both file hashes before and after reading without running a simulation.

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 dense and front-loaded, starting with the core summarize action and then adding comparison and data-quality constraints. It is telegraphic and slightly hard to parse, but most sentences carry useful operational detail and little is wasted.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description is strong on behavioral constraints and comparison semantics. It is weaker on the actual return structure, since it does not describe output fields or shape beyond saying statistics and explicit missing-pair coverage are returned.

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 explains compare_to as the baseline, compare_folder as defaulting to folder, columns as 1..64 distinct columns requiring identical explicit units and increasing timestamps, and csv_name as the target in comparison mode; remaining gaps are minor defaults and allowed folder values.

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: "Summarize hourly or subhour SFI rows in Results or UserHourly," and adds that compare_to returns target minus baseline. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pvsyst_read_rows or pvsyst_read_batch_results.

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 explains comparison mode via compare_to and notes constraints for complete energy and regular cadence. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling read tools or when comparison is inappropriate, leaving usage routing mostly implied.

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