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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's non-committal behavior ('never submits... accepts terms, creates checkout'), the human review step ('EnergyAI reviews scope... before requesting payment'), and the no-friction access ('[always free — no API key required]'). It also hints at output format, giving a clear behavior profile.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, behavioral boundaries, and access requirements. The most important information is front-loaded, and the cost/free note is neatly appended without bloat.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's invocation context: use case, timeline, process, exclusions, and return structure. An agent can confidently decide whether to call it and what to expect without needing additional information.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by constraining the call scope to 'one candidate site and workload' and framing the inputs as 'minimum non-sensitive project facts,' which helps an agent decide which parameters matter and avoid over-sending.

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 states a specific verb ('Qualify the minimum non-sensitive project facts') and resource ('EnergyAI’s $2,500 founding Power Passport'), and clarifies the return value ('an attributable website handoff plus ready-to-paste shareText'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by scoping it to a pre-feasibility screen for one candidate site and workload.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when a compute, data-center, renewable-energy, utility, or infrastructure buyer needs a five-business-day pre-feasibility screen for one candidate site and workload.' It also gives when-not guidance: 'This tool never submits a request, accepts terms, creates checkout, or declares the site qualified,' so an agent knows not to use it for final commitments.

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