get_energy_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It adds the important context that the tool makes a live request (not cached), which is a key behavioral difference from siblings. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, failure behavior, or the impact of making a live request (e.g., higher latency). The description adequately conveys the fresh data aspect but lacks broader behavioral detail.

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?

The description is mostly concise, using two sentences plus a brief rationale. The first sentence clearly states the action and outputs. The second sentence adds behavioral context (live vs. cache) and reasoning. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., remove 'the numbers most often asked about' which is implied by the context) but overall is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not provided), the description explains the return values (solar production, battery, grid, home usage) and the caching behavior. It covers why this tool exists alongside siblings. For a zero-parameter tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention that the output covers all sites/devices the account can see.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information because there are none, but it does explain what the tool returns, which indirectly clarifies that no input is needed. No improvement possible without inventing parameters.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'energy statistics', and the scope 'for every site/device the account can see'. It lists the specific data types (solar production, battery, grid, home usage), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the live request behavior.

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?

The description explicitly states that this tool makes a live request instead of using a throttled cache, and that energy totals are the most often asked about data. This gives clear guidance on when to use it (for fresh energy totals) and implicitly contrasts with other cached tools. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria (e.g., when not to use) but is otherwise clear.

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