get_device_solar_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns solar charging data and limits applicability to solar-capable devices, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens for unsupported devices, error behavior, or any additional operational details such as timezone or data granularity.

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 compact, well-organized, and front-loaded. It leads with a one-sentence definition, adds relevant examples, then provides a concise parameter reference. No unnecessary wording or repetition of schema-only information.

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 simple two-parameter get operation with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter provenance, date formatting, and device applicability. Minor gaps like behavior on non-solar devices or unsupported dates prevent a perfect score.

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%, yet the description fully compensates for both parameters. It explains that device_id comes from get_devices and specifies the exact date format (YYYY-MM-DD), adding meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get solar data for a specific device.' It further clarifies the exact data domain (solar charging data) and provides concrete device examples, making it clearly distinct from the many activity- and health-related sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('for devices with solar panels') and an explicit exclusion ('Only applicable to solar-capable devices'). It also references get_devices as the source for device_id. It does not name an alternative tool, but no direct alternative appears among siblings.

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