OpenSenseMap Latest Sensor Readings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond those by explaining the combined return payload (all sensor readings simultaneously), the fields included, and the null behavior for sensors with no recent data. This is sufficient behavioral context; a slightly higher score would require details like pagination or ordering, which are not necessary for this simple read tool.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional sentences each add useful context: return fields, null behavior, lookup workflow, and licensing. The list of example sensor types is slightly verbose but helps clarify the breadth of readings; overall the description is well-structured and not padded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how to find the required ID, what to use for historical data, and the ideal use case. No critical gap remains.

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?

The schema already covers box_id with 100% coverage, including its type, 24-character MongoDB ObjectId format, and origin from box_search results. The description reinforces this by telling the user to obtain box_id via box_search or box_detail, but it does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest measurement value for every sensor on an OpenSenseMap station in a single call.' It clearly conveys the scope (all sensors on one station), the cardinality (all at once), and distinguishes this from historical retrieval by explicitly mentioning sensor_timeseries for historical data.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use box_search or box_detail to find the box_id first, then use sensor IDs from results with sensor_timeseries for historical data.' It also states an ideal use case ('real-time environmental monitoring dashboards'), which helps an agent decide when to select this tool over siblings.

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