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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the metric formula and the data sources (EIA-860M and EIA-923), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that includes the formula and data sources without any wasted words. It is immediately understandable and 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 this is a describe tool with no parameters, an output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does, which is to describe the capacity factor metric, including its calculation and underlying data sources. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The formula and data sources are sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Describe' and clearly identifies the resource as 'capacity factor', providing the exact formula. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_capacity_factor_v1 (which likely queries data) and other describe tools such as describe_power_capacity_v1. The purpose is 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 implies the tool is used to obtain the definition and calculation of capacity factor, and the formula provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude query usage. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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