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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses several useful behavioral traits: empty result semantics, split ZIP codes between utilities, and commercial licensing restrictions. It still does not state read-only safety, return format, or error behavior beyond the empty case.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, followed by compact caveats about empty results, split ZIPs, and licensing. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?

For a simple lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and empty-result behavior. It is incomplete on parameter requirements since both are optional, and it does not describe the returned utility representation.

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 50%, with zip documented but city undocumented. The description adds that ZIP is the most precise option and city is an alternative, but it does not explain city format or clarify that at least one of the two optional parameters should be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find the utility/TDU serving a Texas ZIP code or city. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like electricity_utilities or market_texas_retail.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use ZIP for precision or city as an alternative, and interpret an empty result as outside the competitive market. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool guidance.

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