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

The description discloses that the tool is a paid service with a price of 0.500 USDC, which is a significant behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also clarifies it is an AI analysis (Claude) producing specific metrics. However, it does not detail payment flow or rate limits, but the cost disclosure adds important context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists key outputs, and ends with the price. Every word earns its place 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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview by listing expected outputs and cost. However, it omits details on how the analysis is returned (format, structure) and does not explicitly state the geographic scope (Caribbean/French overseas) though the tool name and EDF/crédit terms imply it. This is a minor gap but not critical.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters themselves, only listing output metrics like production kWh and TRI. It does not map parameters to outputs or explain how inputs affect the analysis.

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 clearly states the tool performs a solar profitability analysis (Analyse rentabilité solaire), listing specific outputs: production kWh, EDF OA revenues over 20 years, TRI, and credit 244W. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are all 'get_' data retrieval tools by being the only analysis tool.

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 implies use for solar profitability analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance like 'use this when you need a full financial analysis' or 'for raw data, use get_edf_oa_tarifs instead.' The context is implied but not made explicit.

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