get_charging_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is ordered most recent first and enumerates the returned attributes, which helps the agent predict the result. It does not mention read-only semantics, pagination, or error cases, but the tool name and passive phrasing suggest a non-mutating lookup.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the most important fact (past sessions ordered newest first), and lists attributes without redundancy. Every phrase adds 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?

Given no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of outlining the returned data and ordering, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify how 'started and stopped the charge' is represented, nor does it explain the default limit behavior, but the schema covers parameter constraints.

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?

Both parameters (limit, charger) already have descriptions in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('past charging sessions') and specifies ordering and key fields, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' and it does not explicitly contrast with get_charging_schedule, so it falls just short of full 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 word 'past' implies this is for completed sessions, and the listing of start/stop/energy fields gives context. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings like get_charging_schedule, nor exclusions for cases where history is unavailable.

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