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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently covers rate limits ('20 anonymous calls/caller/24h; then 100 free calls/key/30d'), access requirements ('active Builder required'), and input sensitivity ('More inputs → tighter score'). It also states the output shape (score plus next action).

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output details, then input flexibility, then constraints. Every sentence contributes value without repeating schema information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: output axes, next action, input flexibility, rate limits, and access requirements. It could be more explicit about response format or error behavior, but the tool's informational nature makes this sufficient.

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% for all 12 optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance by stating 'from whatever property facts you have' and 'More inputs → tighter score', implying any subset is valid and accuracy scales with input richness—this goes beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool's output: an 'Energy Node Score (0–100 across 7 axes)' plus a 'single highest-leverage next action', based on 'whatever property facts you have'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_production or check_incentives.

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 clear usage context: call it with whatever property facts are available, and 'More inputs → tighter score'. It also notes rate limits and the requirement for an active Builder for sustained use, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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