Get accumulated energy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool computes from meter readings rather than averaging instantaneous power, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the response shape, how missing readings are handled, or whether results are summed across multiple node IDs. For a no-annotation tool, this is adequate but with room to add more behavioral context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose and key differentiator are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives purpose, usage context, and a critical behavioral distinction. It does not explain the return value, but for a reporting-oriented tool, this is a notable gap. Still, the description is strong enough that an agent can decide when to use it and what to expect conceptually.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little semantic value by explaining why 'Difference' is the usual reading type, which helps an agent understand the default parameter. However, it does not go into detail about the date format or node-local time, which is already in 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 action ('Get true accumulated energy') with a precise resource ('meter readings') and unit ('watt-hours'). It explicitly contrasts with averaging instantaneous power, distinguishing it from siblings like get_latest and query_datum without needing to open their schemas.

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 says when to use it: for 'how much did this site generate' questions and reporting/billing-shaped needs. It also gives a reason (averaging loses accuracy). It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the context signals and sibling list imply there are other query tools, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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