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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: filters out unsuitable candidates, no composite score, no key needed, and explains the output format. Clearly states that unsuitable candidates are filtered out, not silently scored low.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. No redundancy 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?

Even though output schema exists but is not shown, the description lists all expected output fields (ok, evaluated, excluded_count, etc.), making the tool's behavior fully understandable without needing the schema.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage); description compensates by explaining that candidates should contain lon/lat fields and that top_n limits results. Also clarifies additional constraints (max 25 points).

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?

Clearly states it is a bulk solar/wind site screener that evaluates up to 25 candidate points and returns the top_n ranked by solar radiation. The distinction from sibling tools like assess_renewable_site (single-site) is implicit but effective.

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?

Provides context on filtering criteria and no key requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with single-site alternatives or specify when to use this tool versus others like assess_grid_exposure.

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