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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it details the returned review components, notes it takes no consequential action, and includes important disclaimers about being educational only, not endorsing installers, and not guaranteeing savings or performance.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose and timing, then describe the output contract and necessary safety disclaimers. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition despite the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns: score components with weightings, overall rating, red flags, missing information, questions to ask, and a next step. Combined with comprehensive schema coverage and clear disclaimers, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool and set user expectations correctly.

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?

All 36 parameters are already documented in the input schema, so the schema provides the field-level semantics. The description only groups parameters into broad categories ('pricing, financing, system/battery, and installer details'), which is useful organization but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('residential solar proposal'), and the decision context ('before a homeowner signs'). It also lists the concrete outputs, making it clearly distinct from the sibling get_scoring_methodology and get_supported_regions tools.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool with 'before a homeowner signs' and provides substantial context about its educational, non-advisory role. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tool names and this tool's purpose leave little ambiguity about selection.

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