solaredge_energy_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key metrics (ac_production vs pv_generation) and parameter details, but omits information about read-only nature, data freshness, authentication, or potential side effects. The description adds value but is incomplete for a tool with zero 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 is relatively concise at 4-5 sentences, with key information front-loaded (energy balance and derived metrics). It uses line breaks to separate concepts, making it scannable. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its sentences without redundancy.

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 (so return values are covered), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage details including special metrics explanation. It lacks coverage of error conditions or data availability, but overall it is complete enough for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains time_range values (today|1d|1w|1m|3m|1y|custom), start_date/end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS), and meters as a comma-separated list of specific options (Production,Consumption,SelfConsumption,FeedIn,Purchased). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail each meter's effect.

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 states the tool provides 'Energy balance and derived metrics (self-consumption rate, self-sufficiency) over a period.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (diagnosis, forecast, live_status) by focusing on historical analysis. The purpose is specific and understandable, though the verb 'analyze' is implicit.

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 provides detailed guidance on parameter usage, including time_range values, date formatting for 'custom', and the optional meters parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names.

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