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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: a stale or partial EEX curve never triggers a decision, and only supply prices excluding tax are compared to the locked supply price excluding tax. This adds valuable operational constraints that an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core inputs, and ends with the key comparison and safety rule. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description provides the essential decision rule and data-source constraints, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with 12 parameters and very low schema description coverage, many parameters and their role in the renewal decision remain to be inferred by the agent. It is adequate but has clear completeness gaps.

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 only 8%, so the description carries a heavy burden. It explains some inputs indirectly, such as échéance and préavis for end_date and notice_period_days, and the locked supply price comparison for current_locked_supply_eur_mwh. But most parameters, including segment, structure, pricing_type, budget_eur_mwh, ceiling_eur_mwh, locked_fraction, and annual_consumption_mwh, remain semantically unexplained.

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 title states it advises on professional renewal, and the description gives a specific combination of inputs: contract end date, notice period, fresh EEX CAL Y+1/Y+2 curve, and comparable professional catalog. It is clearly a renewal advisory tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like analyze_renewal_terms.

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 the tool is used when contract terms, a fresh market curve, and a comparable catalog are available, and when a renewal decision is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as analyze_renewal_terms or assess_ppa.

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