get_timeseries_report_by_rddid_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only extraction and details the exact return record shape (dt, Value, Name, KeyValue, Units), which is strong disclosure. It does not mention potential large-result caveats, but the content is adequate for a retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and an Example, making it scannable. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences ('Retrieve...' and 'Extracts complete...'), but overall every major section 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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by defining return fields and providing a workflow example. It does not mention pagination, maximum list sizes, or error behavior, but for a straightforward timeseries retrieval the key operational context is present.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: model_id is sourced from get_available_models, and rddid is a list of integer RDD IDs sourced from get_sql_available_hourlies. This compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it could add more detail on value formats or constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve hourly timeseries data for a specific variable from an EnergyPlus model.' It further clarifies the mechanism (RDD ID) and names the prerequisite sibling tools, making its purpose distinct from get_sql_available_hourlies and the query tools.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: obtain model_id from get_available_models and rddid from get_sql_available_hourlies, with a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other timeseries/query siblings, but the prerequisite chain makes the intended usage clear.

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