Get heating activity

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds semantic context that prevents conflating heating demand with boiler power/energy use, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the tool's output content and immediately follow with a clarifying exclusion. Every sentence carries useful information with no waste.

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 rich annotations, a full output schema, and complete parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool. The main omission is any pointer to the closely related netatmo_get_heating_summary sibling, which would help an agent choose correctly among many status 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single home_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its optionality and reference to netatmo_list_homes. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete content: boiler heating request status, per-room heating demand percentages, and anticipation. It also rules out a likely misinterpretation ('Demand is not boiler power or energy use'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling netatmo_get_heating_summary, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 only implied. The caveat that demand is not boiler power or energy use hints that other tools (e.g., history tools) should be used for energy data, but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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