get_energy_history

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the data source (persistent store), time range (up to 90 days), and merging behavior with live intraday data. It adds useful context but stops short of explaining the merge mechanics or what 'peak rates' specifically include, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of redundancy. Each clause adds value, covering scope, data source, and output fields efficiently.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: content, units, time window, and additional outputs. Minor gaps include the exact nature of the merge and return format, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has no properties, so there are no parameters requiring explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but this is unnecessary given the zero-parameter design; baseline of 4 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing daily charge/discharge energy totals in kWh, with a 90-day range and additional metrics such as peak rates and net balance. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_power_stats or get_lifetime_stats by specifying temporal granularity and data source.

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 provides clear context for use: it returns daily energy totals over up to 90 days, merging historical and intraday data. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context strongly implies the intended use case for historical daily aggregation.

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