get_ogd_history

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for adding the 14-day hourly cap, the daily file-selection behavior, and the Swiss-local-time-with-no-offset convention. Those are real operational facts an agent cannot get from the 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then limits, with no filler. 'By parsing the STAC CSV assets' is slightly implementation-facing but still informative about data origin.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key limits, file selection, and timezone handling. The main remaining gap is that it says nothing about the shape of returned measurements (columns, rows, unit conventions), which an agent would have to infer.

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 already 100%, so the schema supplies parameter meaning; the description adds the timezone semantics ('Times are Swiss local time (no offset)') and explains that the default 'collection' file choice differs between daily and hourly requests. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema, though coverage of individual parameters remains thin.

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 verb and resource ('Get historical MeteoSwiss OGD measurements') and scopes it to one station and a date range, which implicitly separates it from get_ogd_recent and list_ogd_stations. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives operating constraints ('Daily data defaults to the smaller recent/historical files', 'Hourly history is limited to 14 days') but never states when to choose this tool over get_ogd_recent, get_weather_history, or get_water_history. Usage is implied by 'historical' rather than stated as a selection rule.

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