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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds context about data coverage (226 countries, 2000-2024, grid options) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or response aggregation behavior. With annotations carrying the main safety burden, this is adequate.

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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the core purpose. The list of technologies is somewhat verbose but informative. It is well-structured, moving from action to scope to use cases, and contains no filler.

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 an output schema present and strong annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is queried, the data range, grid options, and the intended use cases. It doesn't explicitly describe how results are formatted or paginated, but the output schema likely handles that. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 all parameters are well-documented. The description adds some context, such as the list of technologies and grid connection options, but these are largely redundant with the schema enums. It does not add extra meaning like units, examples of valid country codes, or citation requirements beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Query'), a clear resource ('electricity generation (GWh)'), and a scoping dimension ('by energy technology for any country'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like irena.energy.capacity_country (capacity vs. generation) and irena.energy.share_renewables (share vs. generation). The mention of 226 countries and 21 technologies further differentiates it.

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 implies the tool is for generation data rather than capacity or share, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over siblings. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., missing data for certain years). However, the phrasing 'for any country' and the listed options (on-grid, off-grid, combined) give a clear context of use.

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