Get daily energy history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a behavioral detail about setting include_instantaneous=False to obtain daily totals, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists, but the description does not go further in disclosing other behaviors (e.g., error cases), which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 with zero waste. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a parameter preference and a usage tip. Every word earns its place—there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers all essential details. The output schema handles return values, and the annotations cover safety. The description provides the key operational nuance (daily totals vs. instantaneous), so nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 fully documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by indicating that `idx` is preferred over `name`, and by explaining the purpose of the include_instantaneous flag for daily totals. These details go beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and help the agent make better parameter choices.

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 ('Read') and resource ('today's counter history'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It naturally distinguishes itself from the weekly and monthly history siblings by the temporal qualifier. The 'Preferred: idx' note also clarifies how to identify the target entity.

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 a useful usage tip for the include_instantaneous parameter but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_weekly_energy_history or get_monthly_energy_history. The word 'today's' implies daily usage, but no direct when-to-use vs sibling tools is given. This qualifies as implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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