Get room temperature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully explains the estimated-temperature behavior and the 'estimated': true flag, plus calibration and the °C unit. This goes beyond the name and schema. It does not cover errors, auth, or side effects, but as a simple read operation this is a solid level of transparency.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary result is front-loaded, and the important estimation caveat is placed second. 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?

For a simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: unit, calibration, and the estimation edge case. It leaves exact response shape and usage differentiation implicit, but these are minor at this complexity level.

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%, with both mac and name already documented as identifier options. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the calibrated current temperature in °C.' The resource is unambiguous and distinct from the setter siblings like set_target_temperature; only get_device_status could overlap, but the temperature-specific scope makes the purpose clear.

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 implied usage is obvious from the name and description: use this when you need the current room temperature. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the similarly read-oriented get_device_status, and no when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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