iec104_interrogate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds '[READ][risk=low]' and details return structure including point fields. No contradictions with 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 compact and well-structured: a header tag, one-line purpose, then Args/Returns/Example sections. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a read-only interrogation tool, the description covers parameters, return format, and example. It does not mention pagination or potential large responses, but given the annotations and simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both params: common_address as ASDU common address with omit behavior, and endpoint as endpoint name. The example further clarifies usage.

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 'General interrogation: all monitored points of a station (ASDU CA)', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling iec104_read_point by indicating it covers all points rather than a single point.

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 implies use when needing all monitored points, and provides endpoint and common_address context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear from 'all monitored points'.

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