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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (P50 curve and uncertainty bands from the connected account) and pointing to an external accuracy publication. This extends the behavioral picture beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The accuracy sentence adds a useful external reference and does not feel wasteful. Overall well-structured and appropriately sized.

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, the description adequately names the return type (P50 curve, uncertainty bands) but leaves zone semantics and the full horizon options implicit. It is sufficient for a basic call but not fully complete for an agent to use without assumptions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially addresses the horizon parameter via 'up to 7 days ahead', leaving zone wholly unexplained and the exact enum values unmentioned. The only required parameter, zone, is completely undocumented.

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: 'probabilistic price forecast'. The 'up to 7 days ahead' scope distinguishes it from real-time or historical price tools, and the mention of P50 curve and uncertainty bands further clarifies its forecasting role. Siblings like get_prices or get_realtime_prices are clearly different in purpose.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool is for forecasting, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or reference sibling tools, so an agent must infer when to choose forecast over real-time or other price tools.

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