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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive/idempotent safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful semantics: pagination over 'complete section rows', primary source coverage, cohort-rate exclusion of non-project summaries, and the explicit warning that approved capacity is not operating load. The statement that the status filter is ignored for cohort rates is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the operation and its three scopes. The trade-off is that the compressed phrasing is heavily jargon-dependent, but every clause carries 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?

With 13 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no documentation of pagination defaults or how section interacts with kind, the description is under-specified for a tool of this complexity. It explains some filter quirks well but leaves the majority of invocation surface to guesswork.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it compensates only partially. It gestures at source scoping (sourceId), the status filter, capacity vs. load (kind), and cohort rates (section), but fuel, region, country, symbol, search, loadClass, historical, offset, and limit are left entirely undocumented in a schema with no descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates three concrete resource scopes — source-scoped power aggregates, observed project cohort outcomes, and utility load exposure — which map onto the three section enum values. It is distinguishable from siblings like power.board and power.coverage, though the term 'source-scoped' is jargon that requires inference from the sourceId parameter.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as power.board, power.coverage, or power.project, which the agent must choose between. The only usage-adjacent content is a caveat ('Cohort rates ... ignore the status filter'), which informs behavior rather than selection.

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