get_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context beyond the schema: it discloses that capacity includes provenance ('where that figure came from') and that energy and income are only present 'when the vendor reports them', warning the agent about nullable fields. However, it never states that this is a read-only call, nor anything about authorization or failure behavior for an invalid or inaccessible site_id.

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?

It is one long run-on sentence structured as a field dump, with no verb front-loading and no sentence breaks to separate purpose from contents. Every listed field is real information, but the density makes it slower to scan than a short purpose statement followed by 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?

An output schema exists, so the entire field enumeration is largely duplicative of structured data the agent already receives, while the genuinely missing pieces — read-only status and position relative to the many overlapping sibling tools — are absent. The one piece of real added value, the conditional availability of vendor-reported energy/income, is buried in the list.

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 0% and the sole required parameter, site_id, is documented nowhere — not its format, and not where to obtain it (e.g. via list_sites). The description only reinforces that the tool operates on a single site, which adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 identifies the resource ('one site') and enumerates the exact facts returned (timezone, battery capacity, power limits, SOC floor, live SOC, energy mode, forced windows, today's energy/income), so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. The verb is only implicit ('Facts about one site') and there is no differentiation from siblings like get_status, get_energy_mode, or get_ai_plus, which overlap heavily with fields listed here.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says whether this is the overview call to make first, or when to prefer get_status, get_energy_mode, or get_ai_plus for overlapping data. The only hint is that it is scoped to a single site, which the agent could infer from the single site_id parameter anyway.

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