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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Data: Energinet, no auth required' and explaining the default behavior of returning recent hours when date parameters are omitted. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and key parameters, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only data tool with an output schema and comprehensive parameter schemas, the description covers the essential operational details: what data is returned, the optional date range, the price zone concept, the data source, and authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each parameter (limit, end_date, price_area, start_date) already has a description. The tool description adds context like the price zone examples and the date-range behavior, but these are largely redundant with the schema. The default limit of 24 is only in the schema, so the description adds marginal value 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves hourly Danish electricity production mix and gross consumption, specifying the verb 'Get' and the exact data resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like co2_emissions and spot_prices by focusing on production/consumption, making its 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 explains the optional date range and that omitting both start and end dates returns the most recent hours, giving clear usage context. It also notes the data source and that no authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with its siblings (e.g., when to use co2_emissions or spot_prices instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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