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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds valuable context beyond that: the scoring formula, federal data source (DOE EAGLE-I/ORNL ODIN), hourly update cadence, and returned fields. It doesn't cover response shape or rate limits, but for a read-only snapshot tool this is sufficient.

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 dense but every sentence/clause earns its place: it packs the metric explanation, data source, update frequency, use cases, and returned fields. It could be lightly restructured for readability, but it contains no 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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose, output fields, scale, and update frequency. The optional history parameter is fully documented in the schema, and there is no output schema needed since fields are named explicitly.

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 has 100% coverage for the sole parameter (days), including min/max bounds, behavior (history vs snapshot), and Gold tier requirement. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: returns a 0-100 US power-grid outage stress score, with detailed semantics (log10, 10M out = 100). It names the exact output fields and the data source, making its scope unambiguous and easy to distinguish from sibling 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?

Explicitly lists user intents (power outages, blackouts, grid stress, storm/hurricane impact, customers without electricity) and decision contexts (timing alerts, field-crew pre-positioning, storm-response). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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