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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the paywall behavior (403 on free plans), the per-call cost of 2 request units, the endpoint, and that responses are JSON in Turkish with source and `guncelleme` metadata.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and coverage windows, then constraints and endpoint. The only waste is the paywall stated twice ('Paid plans only.' then 'Requires a paid plan (free plan returns 403)'), which is redundant but the second mention adds the specific error code.

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 still enumerates the returned fields and metadata, so an agent knows what comes back. For a six-parameter, zero-required read tool, everything needed to call it correctly — cost, access tier, date windows, response language — is present.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the temporal semantics behind the filters — planned outages cover the next 7 days while unplanned cover yesterday and today, which is what `tur` and `tarih` actually select. It does not add detail on `il`, `ilce`, `mahalle` or `limit` beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Returns electricity outages reported by distribution companies') plus precise scope: planned outages for the next 7 days and unplanned faults for yesterday and today, in Turkey. No sibling tool covers outages, and the response fields listed (province, district, neighbourhoods, start/end, reason) make the output shape 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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies (planned vs unplanned windows) and hard eligibility rules: paid plans only, free plan returns 403, 2 request units per call. It does not name an alternative tool for related needs, but no sibling in the list overlaps with outage data, so the absence of routing guidance is low-cost.

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