Get installation details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's trailing "Read-only." merely restates that, earning no credit. It does give useful content context by enumerating the configuration categories returned (load balancing, authentication, enabled features), which helps set expectations beyond the flat annotation, but it discloses nothing about error behavior, freshness, or permissions.

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?

One front-loaded sentence lists the payload and is followed by a three-word safety note; there is no filler. The comma-heavy field list is slightly dense but appropriate for a details tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the input is documented in the schema. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, the definition is nearly complete; only the missing when-to-use guidance leaves a small hole.

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% and the single parameter's default behavior (falls back to the default charger's installation) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (installation) and enumerates the exact attributes returned (address, timezone, fuse/current, load balancing, authentication, circuits, chargers), so an agent knows precisely what it fetches. It is clearly distinct from the verb-oriented siblings (pause, resume, set current), though it never explicitly names an alternative. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus zaptec_get_status or zaptec_get_charge_history, and no mention of prerequisites or the default-installation fallback in prose. Usage is only implied by the field list. This is the description's largest gap.

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