get_plant_data

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the energy time ranges returned, but it does not describe any other behavioral traits such as response shape or data availability caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and the exact data scope without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the colon list is an efficient way to enumerate outputs.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent exactly what data will be retrieved. Minor gaps like error behavior or timezone handling are not critical for tool selection and invocation at this complexity level.

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%, with plant_id explained as 'Plant ID, as returned by get_plants.' The tool description only says 'for a plant,' adding no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('current energy overview for a plant'), and enumerates the exact data included: today's, monthly, yearly, total energy, and current power. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling get_plant_energy, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: if an agent needs a plant's current energy overview, this is the tool. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_plant_energy or get_plant_details, and names no exclusions.

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