get_energy_profileGet a ZIP-level home-energy profile with utility, rebate potential, and provenance. No household PII is requested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that no household PII is requested, which is a valuable privacy-related behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide.
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, well-structured sentence. All information is front-loaded: the verb and resource are immediate, followed by key inclusions and a privacy note. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, inputs, and privacy aspects. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core function and safety.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only mentions 'ZIP-level' indicating the zip parameter, but lacks details like the format or validation pattern (^\d{5}$). Minimal additional semantic value.
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 retrieves a ZIP-level home-energy profile, listing key components (utility, rebate potential, provenance). It is distinct from siblings like check_rebates or get_program_status, which focus on specific aspects.
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 obtaining a broad energy profile per ZIP code and notes no PII is requested, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct ZIP-level question: utility resolution, energy profile, rebate screening, and program status. There is some overlap between check_rebates and get_program_status, and get_energy_profile also mentions rebate potential, but the descriptions clarify the boundaries enough for an agent to choose correctly.
All tool names follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_rebates, get_energy_profile, get_program_status, resolve_utility. The verbs vary by action but the structure is fully consistent and predictable.
Four tools is well within the ideal range for a focused ZIP-level energy data server. Each tool earns its place and covers a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set forms a coherent workflow: resolve the utility, get an energy profile, screen rebates, and check program status. It lacks deeper per-rebate or eligibility-detail endpoints, but that appears consistent with the stated screening-only purpose.