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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description adds some context (e.g., 'aggregated, anonymized' and the cost of $1.00/call), but it does not explain what the return data looks like, whether pagination is required, any rate limits, or if this is a read-only operation. The term 'get' implies safety, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a cost note. All words contribute value, and the cost information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool lacks an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions. The description does not cover return format, pagination behavior, or any caveats about data usage. Given its simplicity, it may be minimally usable, but the absence of essential contextual details (e.g., what aggregation/anonymization entails, whether offset/limit are required) makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 two parameters (limit, offset) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which may be ambiguous without additional context such as what 'limit' counts or how 'offset' correlates with pagination.

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's function: 'Return an aggregated, anonymized Energy Node dataset sample.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools that also provide node-related data, such as get_node_score or get_eta_i_metric, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contrasts with any sibling tools. For example, it does not indicate if this is the preferred tool for exploratory data analysis or sampling versus the more specific scoring/assessment tools.

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