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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the description correctly spends its budget on non-obvious behavior: the row grain (rate-period line items, multiple rows per contract), the explicit 'not a settled trade' caveat, data provenance (FERC EQR via PUDL), and a scope limitation ('Phase 1; no transaction-level price/volume yet'). This is substantive disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose and filter dimensions are front-loaded, followed by return shape and prerequisite. Most sentences earn their place, though the trailing provenance/license clause (CC-BY-4.0, Phase 1) is slightly tangential to invocation decisions.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and clarifies the row grain, and it flags a real coverage limitation. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit/offset, seller substring vs exact company_id_ferc, product substrings, and quarter formats. The description largely restates these (product examples, seller resolution) rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (FERC EQR wholesale power contracts) plus the filter dimensions (seller, counterparty, product). It further disambiguates by explaining the row grain — one rate-period line item, not a settled trade — which an agent cannot infer from the name.

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?

Names a concrete prerequisite workflow: 'Use eqr_seller_lookup first to resolve a company name to a company_id_ferc if you want an exact-seller match.' That is a clear alternative-plus-condition. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., for transaction-level pricing, which it notes is unavailable rather than directing elsewhere).

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