Battery Proposal Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds value by stating 'Free' and enumerating the exact return contents. This provides behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, though it does not discuss authentication 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the free status and then lists all key outputs. Every word has purpose; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a read-only tool with no parameters, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect from the tool: supported utility programs, input schema, exact price, and purchase endpoint. No output schema exists, so this direct enumeration is sufficient and complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered (empty object). The baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It does reference an 'input schema' as part of the return value, which is not a parameter but clarifies output.

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 uses the clear verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource (battery proposal service) and its outputs (utility programs, input schema, price, purchase endpoint). This distinguishes it from the sibling validate_battery_proposal_input, which focuses on input validation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling validate_battery_proposal_input. The description mentions it is 'Free' but does not explain prerequisites, alternatives, or the typical flow of using this tool before or after validation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and closed-world semantics. The description adds value by noting it is 'Free' and explicitly stating it does not reveal project-specific financial results, which informs expectations. No contradiction.

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 three short sentences, with no filler. Each phrase adds a distinct piece of information (cost, purpose, limitation).

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 the high parameter count (14) and lack of parameter descriptions or output schema, the minimal description does not adequately equip the agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks guidance on input semantics or expected results beyond high-level purpose.

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?

The schema lists 14 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanations for any parameter, leaving the agent to rely on names and enums. This is a significant gap for required fields like 'utility', 'capacityKwh', and 'quoteUsd'.

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 clear action ('validates a proposal') and a specific context ('before purchase'). It is distinct from the sibling tool 'describe_battery_proposal_service' which likely provides description, not validation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 'before purchase' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit exclusion or mention of when to use 'describe_battery_proposal_service' instead. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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