get_program_statusGet program availability, freshness, and provenance for a ZIP without guessing when coverage is unknown.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining it handles cases of unknown coverage, providing behavioral nuance beyond annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and concise with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding.
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?
Given a simple single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the key purpose and why to use it, though it could mention the output format or scope more explicitly.
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 should compensate. It only implies 'for a ZIP' without explaining the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema pattern. The description adds little meaning.
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 verb 'get' and the resource 'program status' with specific attributes (availability, freshness, provenance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_rebates by focusing on status and coverage uncertainty.
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 phrase 'without guessing when coverage is unknown' provides clear usage context, suggesting this tool is for definitive status when uncertainty exists. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.