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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Return') and specifies what the output contains, while also noting that no arguments are required. It does not mention error conditions or data freshness, but for a simple no-argument list tool this is sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key output details without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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, parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, what the content includes, and that no input is needed. No output schema exists, so the explicit return-value description is especially valuable.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' reinforcing what an agent already sees in the schema with no ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), names the exact resource (California city editions supported by Solar Quote Audit), and specifies the content (city name and primary electric utility). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which analyze quotes or return scoring methodology.

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 when to use this tool—whenever an agent needs the list of supported California cities and their utilities. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like analyze_solar_quote or get_scoring_methodology.

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