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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the output format (7 axes, next action), the flexible-input behavior, and the rate limits/caller restrictions. It does not mention side effects or data handling, but the 'informational use' note suggests read-only nature. The rate-limit disclosure is particularly valuable.

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, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The rate-limit note is a bit dense but contains necessary operational info. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 12 optional params and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, how inputs are used, and usage restrictions. It does not elaborate on each axis or error handling, but the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described via examples. The description adds the crucial semantic that all parameters are optional and that more inputs yield a tighter score, which directly informs invocation decisions. It goes beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between input quantity and output quality.

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 verb (compute), the resource (Energy Node Score), and the specific output (0–100 score across 7 named axes plus a highest-leverage next action). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_energy_node_roadmap or generate_energy_recommendation_preview by focusing on the score itself.

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 conveys strong usage context: it works 'from whatever property facts you have' and that 'More inputs → tighter score,' implying it is the go-to tool for flexible-input scoring. It also provides rate limits and a Builder requirement, which helps the agent decide whether to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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