Get charging history

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

Adds real context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: only COMPLETED sessions are returned, timestamps are in installation-local time, and cost fields are conditional on ZAPTEC_PRICE_PER_KWH being configured. That conditional-output disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the resource and scope come first, the conditional cost caveat and read-only note follow. No wasted sentences, though 'Read-only.' slightly duplicates the annotation.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure needn't be restated, and the description still flags conditional cost fields. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only explicit alternative-routing guidance is missing.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds semantics the schema lacks – notably that time_range is interpreted in installation-local time. This is a meaningful clarification over the enum/default already documented.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Completed charging sessions in a time range') and enumerates what each session contains (start, end, duration, kWh, summary). It is clearly distinguishable from zaptec_get_status and the pause/resume siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the time-range framing rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for historical/completed sessions. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison against siblings such as zaptec_get_status.

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