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

Without annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose the cost ($0.10/call) and the key persisted outputs, but it omits important behavioral details: whether the operation is idempotent, what 'provisional' means, how long the project persists, or any authorization requirements beyond the optional apiKey.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and cost. There is no filler or repetition, and it front-loads the key outcome ('Create a persisted project context...').

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to mention the required postalCode, what a provisional Energy Node score implies, what the coverage map contains, or how the assessmentId is meant to be reused. An agent would need to guess at critical context.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 22% (only apiKey and postalCode have descriptions). The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics, failing to explain which parameters are required, how they influence the generated score or coverage map, or the meaning of defaults. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 identifies the verb 'Create' and the specific resources produced: persisted project context, provisional Energy Node score, coverage map, and reusable assessmentId. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing a single-call bootstrap that yields an immediately reusable assessmentId.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_energy_assessment or get_energy_node_score. The phrase 'in one call' implies a convenience use case, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative mentions.

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