list_witzense_alarms

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

The description does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior (despite page_no/page_size params), time range constraints, or what 'supported time range' means (e.g., max 1 month, timezone). With no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap. The description mentions 'supported time range' but doesn't elaborate on what that range is or how it behaves.

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 one sentence and does not waste words. It is short and to the point, which is appropriate for a tool that should add just a bit of context beyond the name.

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?

Six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions mean the description carries a heavy burden to provide context. It fails to explain the time format, parameter semantics, or return value shape. The lack of any guidance on the time range filters (which look critically important given the description's mention of a 'supported time range') is a major gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'for one or more devices' which loosely maps to the 'imeis' parameter. No meaning is added for the time range parameters (begin_time/end_time), pagination, or alertTypeId filter. The description fails to clarify the format of time strings (e.g., Unix timestamp vs ISO 8601) or how imeis is delimited (e.g., comma-separated).

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('alarms') and the key qualifier ('for one or more devices within the supported time range'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings, the 'supported time range' phrase adds a constraint worth noting. No sibling tool is named as an alternative, so no differentiation is given, but the core purpose is clear.

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 is silent on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 22 siblings (including get_witzense_device, get_witzense_track, get_witzense_device_locations), the description should clarify cases for using list_witzense_alarms, such as 'use for historical alarm queries' versus 'use get_witzense_device for device status.' No such guidance exists.

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