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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond annotations: API key requirement, pricing, refund policy, and ongoing redistribution-terms review. It does not describe rate limits or authentication mechanics in detail.

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 front-loaded with the data scope and then gives access constraints. Three sentences with no obvious filler, though the pricing and refund detail is somewhat expansive for a tool description.

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?

The description covers data scope and access requirements, and the output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It still leaves the `params` object unexplained and does not clarify when this tool is preferable to closely named siblings.

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 one optional, undocumented `params` object with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no guidance on what may be passed in it. With only one optional parameter the impact is limited, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Query) and names the exact MISO dataset: Planning Resource Auction seasonal zonal ACP, ERZ values, CONE parameters, and IMM conduct thresholds. This clearly distinguishes it from PJM or accreditation siblings and from generic capacity-market tools.

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?

It states prerequisites: an API key, pricing, and that the data point is not included in free queries. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as describe_power_capacity_market_miso_v1 or query_power_capacity_market_pjm_v1.

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