Get boiler activity history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding semantics annotations cannot express: the metric is heat-demand duration, not energy, and a thermostat is required. It stops short of describing bucket edge cases or gaps in data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the number means and the prerequisite, then the semantic caveat, then the default. 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety; the description supplies prerequisites, unit semantics, and default range. What is missing is explicit positioning against the many sibling history tools.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds one genuine fact not present in the schema: the default range is yesterday. It does not explain mode/scale interplay (that lives in the schema), which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 (boiler heat-request history) plus the unit of measure (minutes and share of time, per bucket), and explicitly excludes a likely misreading by saying it is heat-demand time, not gas or energy consumption. It does not name a sibling such as netatmo_get_temperature_history to sharpen the boundary, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

'Requires a Netatmo thermostat' is a useful prerequisite and 'Default: yesterday' sets a default context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance relative to siblings like netatmo_get_heating_summary or netatmo_get_setpoint_history, leaving the choice to inference.

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