peak_hours

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits but only states what the tool returns. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if any destructive side effects exist, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 extremely concise at four words, but this brevity sacrifices clarity and structure. It could be improved by front-loading the action (e.g., 'Retrieves') and adding a single sentence about parameters. The current version is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about the scope of usage (e.g., half-hour intervals, energy domain), how the time period works, or any constraints. For a tool named 'peak_hours', more context would significantly aid correct invocation.

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 description adds no information about the parameters 'period' and 'top_n' beyond what the input schema provides. Although the schema includes some descriptions (e.g., for 'kind'), the description does not explain how to use these parameters effectively or what values are appropriate. With 0% coverage in the description itself, this is a notable 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?

The description 'Top-N highest-usage half-hours' clearly states that the tool returns the top N half-hour periods with highest usage. It implies a retrieval operation and distinguishes itself from related tools like 'get_consumption_raw' (raw data) and 'usage_breakdown' (breakdown). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_consumption_raw' or 'usage_breakdown'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This omission forces the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and schema alone.

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