get_battery_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a list of returned metrics, which is largely duplicated by the existing output schema, and says nothing about whether values are instantaneous snapshots, cached, or how often they refresh.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and no filler. Slightly over-enumerated on returned fields given an output schema already exists, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-param read-only status tool with annotations and a full output schema, the description is essentially sufficient – the return shape is documented elsewhere. What is missing is the usage framing that would tell an agent when to prefer this over the other *_status siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 resource (Battery/ESS state) and scope (whole plant), and enumerates the metrics returned (SOC, SOH, power, capacity, energy, limits). It is clearly distinguishable from get_grid_status or get_inverter_status by name, but never explicitly says what it is not, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling status tools (get_inverter_status, get_grid_status, get_plant_status), and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the battery-specific status call rather than a plant-wide one.

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