get_device_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the sort order (newest first) and that it is a read. It does not state permissions, pagination behavior, or that limit defaults to 100 (that lives only in the schema).

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the ordering qualifier.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal viable: it conveys read-only intent and ordering but omits any mention of the filtering capabilities (since, metric) or result-size controls that an agent should understand before calling.

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%, so all four parameters (deviceId, limit, since, metric) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what is structured, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('device's telemetry history'), and an ordering convention ('newest first'). It implicitly separates from get_latest_telemetry by promising history rather than the latest reading, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'history' suggests this is for retrieving past readings rather than the current one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling get_latest_telemetry / get_sub_device_telemetry alternatives are never mentioned.

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