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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idlempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds context about the returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core action, followed by a concise list of key fields. No redundant words or filler, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. With only one parameter and a clear list of included data, the description fully satisfies the informational needs for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, including a description for 'station_id' that explains its origin. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('detailed record for one specific alt-fuel station'), and enumerates distinct fields (operator info, address, hours, EV charging breakdown, payment methods, access restrictions). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like nrel.afdc.nearest and nrel.afdc.search which return lists of stations.

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 when to use (when you have a specific station ID and need full details) and mentions the ID source ('obtained from afdc_stations_nearest or afdc_stations_search results'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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