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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that results are a paginated summary and that full detail is available via get_project. It does not go into output fields or the fact that status can reach non-waiting buckets, but those are covered by the schema.

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 sentences cover scope, output type, routing to get_project, and an example with no filler. The key constraint ('currently stuck waiting on permitting approval') is front-loaded, and the example earns its place.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential context: dataset scope, paginated summary response, and where to get full detail. It leaves parameter-level detail to the 100%-covered schema and doesn't fully describe return fields, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds practical value by translating an example query into concrete parameter values (state=TX, fuelType=[solar], minYearsWaiting=3), which helps an agent map user intent to filters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search the WaitingForPower dataset of U.S. energy projects ... stuck waiting on permitting approval.' It also distinguishes itself from get_project by noting it returns only a paginated summary, not full project details.

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 states when to move to an alternative: 'call get_project with a slug for full detail (sources, milestone timeline).' The example also demonstrates the kind of natural-language query this tool is meant to answer, making the intended use clear.

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