get_solarbank_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'cached data', implying a non-live query, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 uses a docstring format with Args section, which is structured but somewhat verbose. It could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it omits important context such as what happens if no schedule is found (e.g., null or error), prerequisites like permissions, and behavior under error conditions. The mention of 'cached data' is helpful but incomplete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable context by explaining that device_sn is the 'Solarbank's device serial number' and references list_solarbanks or list_devices for obtaining it. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Device Sn' title.

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 'Get' and the resource 'charge/discharge schedule and output-power plan' for a Solarbank. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_solarbank_status, which deals with status rather than schedule.

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 mentions the schedule is returned 'if the Anker cloud API reports one under this device's cached data', which hints at conditional existence but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_solarbank_status. No when-not or alternative tools are suggested.

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