get_readings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape ({total, readings: [...]}), ordering (newest last), the limit=0 special case, the scale warning (can be thousands over a fermentation), and temperature units (°C). It does not mention read-only/auth expectations, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return contract, with the limit and unit caveats following. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description supplies the return shape, ordering, units, and limit semantics — enough to invoke and interpret the call correctly. Only the absence of batch_id semantics and any auth/permission note keeps it from being fully complete.

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 must compensate, and it does for the critical parameter: limit's default behavior, its special value 0 = all, and the potential magnitude. batch_id is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool's framing.

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 (Read) plus resource (a batch's sensor readings), with the domain clarified via concrete examples (hydrometer, Tilt/iSpindel). No sibling tool covers readings, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from get_batch or find_batches.

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 name — you call it to read a batch's sensor data — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of how it relates to get_batch, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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