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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the 50 MW eligibility threshold, coverage of 15 utilities/markets, and that every cell is linked to a source tariff or docket, which signals provenance and auditability.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the subject and the eligibility threshold before the field list and filter note. It is long but every clause carries information; only mild run-on structure keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (study fee, collateral per MW, minimum bill, contract term, ramp, exit fee, energization year) plus their sourcing. An agent knows what it will get and under what eligibility condition.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies the single filter accepts market, utility OR state values, which is broader than the parameter name 'market' alone suggests. No value syntax or case-sensitivity guidance is given.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (what a 50 MW+ load pays to connect), states scope (fifteen US utilities and markets) and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_tariff_rates, get_lead_times and get_price_bands.

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 notes the optional filter by market, utility or state, which implies the intended lookup use. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_tariff_rates or get_lead_times, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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