Summarise heating over a period

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: the calculations are deterministic/reproducible, and energy or gas figures are not included. Pagination, cost and rate-limit behavior remain unmentioned, but they are less central here.

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 compact sentences: the output content is front-loaded, the default and the exclusion follow. No repetition or filler. Slight density in the first sentence's list, but it earns its place by defining the tool's output.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return shape, yet it still enumerates the headline metrics, and it covers defaulting and the data it refuses to produce. The one missing piece for a read-only analytics tool surrounded by history/status siblings is explicit disambiguation from them.

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, and the description earns one step above it by disclosing the default window ("yesterday") that the schema does not state for the period/from/to trio. It adds no further detail on room_id vs room_name resolution, which the schema handles.

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 (per-room temperature statistics, mean setpoint, time below/within/above target, cool-down rate, boiler heat-demand time) so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It also states what is deliberately excluded ("no energy or gas figures"). It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g. netatmo_get_temperature_history or netatmo_compare_rooms) to prefer over it.

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?

"Default: yesterday" supplies the no-argument behavior, which is genuine usage guidance, and the exclusion of energy/gas figures implicitly steers an agent away from this tool for consumption data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the many heating-oriented siblings such as netatmo_get_heating_status or netatmo_compare_rooms.

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