get_daily_energy

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying YYYY-MM-DD format and inclusive endpoints, but does not disclose granularity, timezone handling, or response shape.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope and then adds the necessary date-format detail. There is no redundancy or filler.

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, the description plus annotations and output schema give enough information to call it correctly. The only notable gaps are explicit sibling guidance and timezone/unit nuance, which are minor here.

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 compensate. It does specify that both dates use YYYY-MM-DD and are inclusive, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not clarify units, aggregation granularity, or timezone effects, which remain open.

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 '读取' (read) and resource '用电量' (electricity consumption) bounded by a date range, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_lifetime_energy or get_electricity_summary.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, nor are alternatives mentioned. The date-range scope implies a daily view, but the description leaves selection criteria entirely to the agent's inference.

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