Get logbook

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: with start_time and no end_time it runs to now, whereas Home Assistant alone would cap at 24 hours. That is useful context beyond the structured fields, though no return-shape or pagination behavior is described.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and filtering, the second covers timestamp format and the end_time default caveat. Front-loaded with the purpose and 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?

With no output schema, the description wisely characterizes the return content (human-readable 'what happened and when'), and the annotations carry the safety profile. It omits any mention of the instance_id refusal behavior that the schema documents, but that gap is minor given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description still adds value by stating the timestamp format (ISO 8601) and the end_time default semantics, i.e. behavior the schema's terse per-property descriptions do not convey.

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 — 'Return human-readable logbook entries (what happened and when)' — with the filter scope made explicit. It separates itself conceptually from sibling log tools (ha_get_history, ha_get_system_log, ha_get_error_log), but never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('logbook entries'), and the optional entity/time filtering hints at typical calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the many sibling log/history tools. An agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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