energy.fuel-stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (locator) and details EV return fields, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: first introduces the tool and lists filters, second specifies EV return fields. Both sentences are information-dense and front-loaded, with no redundant words or 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?

The description explains the purpose and filters well, and details return values for EV stations, but does not specify return values for other fuel types. With no output schema, this is a gap. Parameter count is 10, and while many filters are mentioned, some (like limit) are not explained. The description is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 10% (one parameter has a description). The tool's description compensates by listing most filter options and fuel type codes in a narrative form, but it does not describe each parameter individually (e.g., limit, network, accessCode). This adds value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 it is an 'NREL alternative-fuel station locator' with specific filters (lat/lon, radius, state, zip, fuelType with codes, status, access, EV network). It has a unique purpose among sibling tools, which do not include station locators, achieving high differentiation.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to find alternative-fuel stations with various filters) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. Given no obvious sibling overlap, the lack of exclusions is not a major gap.

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