zont_load_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: multi-device batching, the timestamp convention (unix seconds since 1970-01-01 UTC), and the valid data_types vocabulary. It is silent on authentication requirements, rate limits, result size/pagination, and whether the call is read-only, leaving real gaps for a data-fetch tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the request format and accepted values. The data_types enumeration is long but earns its place as the only source of that vocabulary; otherwise there is little 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input format is fully documented despite zero schema coverage. What remains missing is operational context: auth needs, limits on how many devices/time ranges can be batched, and how it differs from the archive siblings.

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 0% and the nested item schema is opaque (additionalProperties: true with no properties), so the description is the only documentation. It compensates well by spelling out the request object shape (device_id, data_types, optional mintime/maxtime) and enumerating valid data_types values, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource (load device data history) and enumerates the concrete content it covers: temperature sensor readings, thermostat operation, GPS tracks, events, controller state. An agent immediately knows what it retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the archive siblings (zont_generate_archive/zont_download_archive) or zont_raw_events.

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 implied rather than stated: it notes that multiple devices and data types can be requested in a single call, which hints at batching behavior. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-alternatives guidance, nor any exclusion of the archive or raw_events siblings.

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