iec104_read_point

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the return dict structure including 'found' and 'quality', plus guidance to omit common_address for the first station. It does not describe error handling for missing points, but the 'found' key partially addresses this.

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 concise, front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by args, return dict, and example. No wasted words; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete: it explains how to invoke, what each parameter does, what the return looks like, and provides a concrete example. No output schema exists, but the return dict is documented sufficiently.

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 description explains all three parameters (io_address, common_address, endpoint) with semantics beyond the schema, including default behavior for common_address and endpoint resolution from config. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('one monitored point by information-object address'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like iec104_interrogate. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 usage for reading a single point but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives such as iec104_interrogate or iec61850_read. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.

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