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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the headline excludes loans, income-restricted amounts, and unverified rows, conditional income and financing totals are reported separately, no income is inferred from ZIP, and no household PII is requested. What it omits is any note on freshness, coverage gaps for ZIPs with no data, or rate limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the exclusion and privacy details. The caveats about conditional income and no income being inferred from ZIP overlap slightly, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given a single-parameter, read-only lookup, the description supplies everything material an agent needs: what is included in the headline, what is reported separately, and the privacy stance.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does imply the input is a ZIP and clarifies that no income is inferred from it, but it never states the expected format or validation (the 5-digit pattern lives only in the schema). That partial compensation warrants a mid-range score rather than a full one.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a ZIP-level energy profile') and specifies what the result contains ('utility and up to incentive screening totals'). It does not name or contrast with the siblings check_rebates, get_program_status, or resolve_utility, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The description never mentions when an agent should call this instead of check_rebates or resolve_utility, nor whether a utility must be resolved first, so the selection decision is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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