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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'exact-cell citations' and 'missing semantics,' which informs the agent about the tool's output structure beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Describe EIA-923 receipt/cost filters') and lists specific aspects covered. It contains no extraneous words or redundancy.

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 zero parameters, complete annotations, and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It specifies key details like exact-cell citations and missing semantics, ensuring the agent understands the return format without needing further explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, and it appropriately describes the tool's function without referencing nonexistent parameters.

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 the tool describes 'EIA-923 receipt/cost filters, raw units, missing semantics, and exact-cell citations.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource domain ('power fuel cost'), distinguishing it from sibling describe tools focused on other domains (e.g., describe_capacity_factor_v1).

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 usage for obtaining metadata about EIA-923 receipt/cost data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_power_fuel_cost_v1 or other describe tools. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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