Get historical metric series

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (max/min/average/median plus per-bucket points) and acceptable date formats. However, it lacks information on potential behavioral traits like data limits, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 with 4 sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, kinds, data source, date format, and return structure. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter sources, date formats, and return structure. It could mention ordering or record limits, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the source of deviceSn (from baseline_list_devices), date format (ISO-8601 or YYYY-MM-DD), and default granularity (day). This clarifies meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it provides historical time-series for a single device, lists the metric kinds, and distinguishes itself from siblings like baseline_get_live (real-time) and baseline_get_report (reports). It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'history series', making purpose 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?

The description tells when to use this tool by specifying it is the source for historical pressure and per-zone/flow/moisture/temperature trends. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of siblings implies alternatives. It also clarifies how to obtain deviceSn from another tool.

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