Get Consumption

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned (consumption, cost, average price) and the parameters, but discloses nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how periods are counted. Being a read operation, no mutation is implied, but the description fails to add any behavioral context beyond a basic data summary.

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 efficient: a one-line summary of returned data followed by a compact parameter list. The most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded. The prose is minimal with no filler. Minor deduction for the mixing of natural-language summary and terse parameter definitions, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, which lowers the burden. However, the description does not clarify the purpose of home_id, a parameter that could be confusing (whether it defaults to the 'current' home). It also does not place the tool among its siblings, so an agent navigating between get_consumption, get_consumption_report, and get_live_measurement lacks sufficient context. Moderate complexity, partially addressed.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does explain resolution (listing the valid values HOURLY/DAILY/WEEKLY/MONTHLY) and last (number of recent periods), but it omits home_id entirely, which is one of the three parameters. The description adds value for two of three parameters, but misses the third, leaving a gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Historischer Verbrauch pro Periode' – historical consumption per period) with concrete outputs (kWh, cost in EUR, average price). It is clear about what data is returned, though it does not differentiate from the sibling get_consumption_report, which likely overlaps significantly in scope. The German language also slightly reduces universal clarity for non-German agents.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are several closely related tools (get_consumption_report, get_live_measurement, get_price_forecast), but the description offers no context about when each is appropriate. The only hint is the range of resolutions (HOURLY to MONTHLY), which implicitly suggests a historical aggregator, but no explicit when/when-not instruction is provided.

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