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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful context about the trailing 24-hour vs trailing-month baseline, daily refresh, and the specific metrics returned. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits operational details like authentication or rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded, leading with the core output and score definition, followed by use cases and update cadence. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields and explains the scoring window. The optional history behavior and Gold-tier requirement are only in the schema, not the description, but the schema is available to the agent, so the description is still largely complete.

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 only parameter (days) is 100% described in the input schema, including its range and the Gold-tier requirement. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the high schema coverage makes this a baseline 3.

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 returns a 0-100 UK retail electricity price-stress score, enumerates the output fields, and specifies the data source and scoring window. This makes the tool's function obvious and distinct from the opaque adw_xxx sibling names.

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 gives explicit call scenarios: UK power price spikes, cheap-electricity windows, energy cost pressure, load-shifting, EV charging, and flexible industrial runs. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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