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 phrase 'with provenance and honest confidence' adds a genuine behavioral signal — results may be uncertain and are attributed — but it is never unpacked (what confidence scale, what provenance source, what happens on ambiguity).

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no filler. The trailing clause is informative rather than padding, though it is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and one required parameter is trivially discoverable. The main gap is the unaddressed real-world case of a ZIP served by multiple utilities, plus the meaning of 'provenance' and 'confidence'.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning; it confirms the parameter is a ZIP serving as the lookup key, but the format constraint (^\d{5}$) lives only in the schema and no semantics are added about which ZIP universe is valid. Adequate minimum, no more.

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?

States a specific verb ('resolve') and a specific resource ('the serving electric utility') scoped to a ZIP. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (rebates, energy profile, program status), though the description never names them to reinforce the boundary.

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, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools that could be confused with it. The only guidance is implicit in the purpose statement, and no prerequisites (e.g., US-only ZIPs, what to do when a ZIP spans multiple utilities) are stated.

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