get_charges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Get' (read operation) and lists parameters but does not explicitly state read-only nature, order of results, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured with a clear first-line purpose, followed by an Args section with each parameter on a separate line, and a Returns section. No redundant sentences.

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 6 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and return type adequately. It lacks explanation of ordering or error behavior, but pagination is addressed via parameters. Sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 0% (JSON schema properties lack descriptions). The description compensates by listing all 6 parameters with types, defaults, and semantic hints (e.g., 'ISO format', '1-indexed', min/max for per_page). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get charging history/sessions for a charge point,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_charge_point' (single point details) and 'start_charge' (action).

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 implicitly indicates use for retrieving history of a specific charge point, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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