Hobart machine daily data

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious trait: Hobart only refreshes after power-off or shortly before midnight, so the payload is stale by design. That freshness caveat materially changes how an agent interprets and reports the data, and it is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express.

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, no filler, with the payload contents front-loaded and the staleness caveat placed where it will be read before calling. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned sections, and the refresh caveat covers the main interpretive risk. Minor gaps remain: units for consumption values and the potential size of the hygiene protocol (one entry per wash cycle) are unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the pointer to hobart_list_machines for obtaining the serial. The description adds nothing further about the serial, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (daily dishwasher data) and enumerates its three sections: consumption metrics, C0xx counters, and the per-cycle hygiene protocol. This distinguishes it in practice from hobart_get_temperatures and hobart_get_active_errors, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear selection rule: this returns the last completed day, not the current state, so an agent needing live readings knows to look elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative tool for real-time data.

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