sample_temperature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: a 600s maximum recording window, a 0.5s minimum interval tied to the instrument's physical update rate, and the fact that both aggregate statistics and raw samples are returned. It does not mention whether the call blocks for the full duration or how long 600s of sampling behaves, which keeps it at a 4.

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 behavioural summary is front-loaded in one sentence and the two parameters follow in a compact arg list, with no wasted prose. The 'Args:' block is conventional rather than elegant, but every line carries non-redundant constraint information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and its one-line summary of 'statistics plus all samples' is sufficient signposting. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the binding constraints on both parameters are supplied, leaving only edge-case behaviour (blocking, truncation, error conditions) unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, and it does: it documents units (seconds), a hard maximum of 600 for duration_s, a minimum of 0.5 for interval_s, and explains interval_s as the instrument's update rate rather than an arbitrary knob. Defaults and types are left to the schema, so it is not exhaustive.

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 and resource ('Record temperature readings over a period') plus the output shape ('return statistics plus all samples'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling read_temperature, which is likely a single instantaneous read, so it falls short of a 5.

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: 'over a period' suggests this is the time-series/multi-sample option, which an agent can infer as distinct from read_temperature. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion statement naming read_temperature as the alternative for one-off reads.

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