Get heating schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the payload includes the active schedule indicator, which is useful selection context but is largely restating return content already covered by the output schema. No mention of payload size, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. The inline enumeration is dense but each item carries informational value for judging tool fit; only the 'day + time + zone' phrasing is slightly cryptic.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema covers the lone optional parameter, and an output schema exists to describe return structure. The description supplies the conceptual shape of the schedule data (zones, setpoints, timetable, active schedule) which is enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

With a single optional home_id at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that the ID comes from netatmo_list_homes and is defaulted for single-home accounts. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 noun phrase 'Weekly heating schedules of a home' plus the enumerated contents (zones, setpoints, away/frost-guard temperatures, timetable, active schedule) makes the resource concrete and distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like netatmo_get_heating_summary and netatmo_get_heating_status. It lacks a leading verb ('Retrieve...') but an agent can still identify it as a read of schedule configuration rather than live status.

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 — an agent infers this is the tool for static weekly programming as opposed to current heating status, but nothing in the description states when to prefer it over netatmo_get_heating_status or netatmo_get_heating_summary. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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