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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the catalog is a fixed set of 53 curated examples spanning dwellings, shops, offices, PV, EV, UPS, substations and PLCs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, the count and the resource, followed by the return fields. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description plus structured data is sufficient to call it correctly; only the sibling relationship is unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a parameterless listing rather than leaving the agent guessing about filters.

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 (List) and resource (the 53 example installations), and enumerates the domain categories covered. It is distinguishable from get_example (single item) by implication, but never names or contrasts its siblings list_types/get_example explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before calling get_example, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as list_types or get_reference_card.

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