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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a free source-backed screen with explicit unknowns and the next paid-handoff path, and it explicitly does not perform engineering, utility approval, or payment. This complements the annotations rather than merely repeating them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key routing signal ('PRIMARY TOOL'). Every sentence earns its place: purpose, when to call, return content, and exclusions are all covered without repetition or fluff.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what to expect (free screen, explicit unknowns, paid-handoff path) and what the tool will not do. The sibling list context makes the 'offer catalog' reference actionable, so the agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for parameter meaning. It adds the useful clarification that 'address' means a street address and that the analysis is property-specific, but it does not explain address format expectations, normalization, or how to handle ambiguous/incomplete addresses. The single parameter is simple, so the gap is moderate.

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 the exact verb and resource: analyze EV opportunity at a property address. It explicitly positions itself as the PRIMARY tool for property-specific EV questions, which differentiates it from offer-catalog and handoff siblings. The examples of when it applies ('whether EV charging makes sense, what charging competition is nearby') make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: when the user supplies a street address and asks property-specific EV questions. It also gives a when-not-to-use directive by saying to call this tool FIRST without calling the offer catalog first, which redirects the agent away from a likely sibling. This is strong routing guidance.

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