Retrieve daily electricity consumption in kWh between two inclusive dates, with total and average, for up to 366 days ending no later than yesterday; read-only.
Donne la consommation d'électricité jour par jour, en kWh, entre deux dates incluses, avec le total et la moyenne. Dates au format AAAA-MM-JJ (exemple 2026-05-01). Jusqu'à 366 jours, jusqu'à hier au plus tard. Lecture seule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fin | Yes | ||
| debut | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Lecture seule') plus the range and end-date limits, which are real behavioral boundaries. It omits what happens on invalid or future dates and whether days without data appear as gaps or zeros.
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?
Four short sentences: purpose and return values first, then format, then limits, then read-only status. Every sentence adds a fact an agent needs, with no filler.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (daily values, total, average), input format and validity limits. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — missing data days and error responses — but nothing essential to issuing a correct call is absent.
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% — the properties are bare strings titled 'Debut' and 'Fin' — so the description must compensate, and it does: date format AAAA-MM-JJ with an example, inclusive boundary semantics, and both range limits. Only the interplay of debut/fin validation errors is left unstated.
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: daily electricity consumption in kWh between two inclusive dates, plus total and average. That clearly distinguishes it from conso_veille (single day), courbe_charge (load curve) and puissance_max (peak power), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives concrete applicability windows: maximum 366 days per call and an end date no later than yesterday. These constraints tell an agent when the call is valid, but no alternative tool is named for out-of-range cases or for single-day queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.