get_device_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the non-obvious calendar field timezone quirk (epoch interpreted as UTC+8 local wall-clock). This is exactly the kind of behavioral trap that would cause incorrect timestamp handling if undocumented.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states the core operation and scope, the second delivers the critical timezone gotcha. Purpose is front-loaded and 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?

Given full schema parameter documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, the description plus structured data is nearly complete. The one conceivable gap is pagination or response size for a full day of five-minute readings, but that is minor and the timezone note addresses the trickiest operational detail.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (date, device_sn, device_type) with formats and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('five-minute readings'), and clear scope ('single device for one day'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_device_last_data (latest reading only) and get_device_info (device metadata), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 implied by the phrase 'for a single device for one day,' which signals a historical-retrieval context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no named sibling tool. An agent must infer that this is the right choice for time-series history rather than being told.

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