get_readings_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (count, min, max, average in Fahrenheit, first/last times), which is meaningful transparency, but it never defines the 'recent' window, says nothing about read-only safety or permissions, and doesn't clarify whether raw history is retrievable at all.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the remaining clauses devoted to enumerating return fields that are otherwise undocumented because there is no output schema. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly spells out return values, and for a one-parameter read tool that covers most needs. The gaps are the undefined 'recent' time window and the lack of any behavioral note (retention, truncation, permissions), which matter for a tool whose name promises history.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains sensor_id and points to list_sensors. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (e.g., format or error behavior for unknown IDs), 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?

The description names a specific action (summarize) applied to a specific resource (a sensor's recent readings) and enumerates the returned fields (count, min/max/avg, first/last times), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_sensor or get_freezer_status, and the 'history' in the name sits oddly against a summary-only result, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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: the summary framing suggests this is for aggregate statistics rather than raw data or current status, which hints at when to prefer it over get_sensor. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no named alternative, and 'recent' is never given a time window, so an agent must guess at the boundary conditions.

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