Review a site as an asset manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it reveals that detection is peer-relative, that bad weather never raises an event, and that each fault is returned as a dated event with duration and energy cost. It does not cover pagination, limits, or permission requirements, but the core behavioral model is clearly disclosed.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core behavior, then gives use cases, then the competing-tool routing, then a key detection caveat. Every sentence earns its place and none are redundant.

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?

For a read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return value sufficiently by listing what each fault event contains. It also handles the main ambiguity around long windows and weather-related false positives. Minor gaps remain around output format details and explicit read-only labeling, but the description is largely complete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, and the schema already explains nodeId, startDate, and endDate semantics. The description adds context about the 'day-by-day record' and the window-length preference, but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and output: 'Walk a site's day-by-day record and return every fault as a dated event' with clear event fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from diagnose_site by explaining what diagnose_site cannot see, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'what is wrong with this site', 'when did it start', 'how much has this cost us', and work-order feeds. It also gives a direct routing rule: 'Prefer this over diagnose_site for any window longer than a few days' with a concrete reason.

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