register_profile

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 discloses important behavior: accepted CSV formats (1 day, 7 days, full year), unit rescaling to 1,000 kWh/a, and optional timestamp column. However, it doesn't mention validation rules, error handling, whether registration is persistent, or any rate limits. Given no annotations, this is partial 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format details. No wasted words; the second sentence efficiently links to downstream usage. Could be slightly more structured but is clear and compact.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main input formats and integration point but omits behavioral details like validation, persistence, or error handling. It's adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer or discover via trial.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds some semantics: CSV format expectations for csv_path, and implied use of name. However, it doesn't explain step_min (inferred from timestamps if omitted) or the description parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a user-supplied profile') and adds key detail about accepted CSV formats and unit rescaling. Distinguishes it from siblings like load_grid or list_bdew_profiles, which handle built-in/BDew data. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish 'register' as the setup step versus generate_profiles as the usage step.

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?

Clearly indicates the tool's purpose: adding custom profiles. Mentions how the registered name should be used ('Use its name in category_profiles / load_profiles'), which provides downstream context. But it doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., use built-in profiles instead) or compare with sibling alternatives.

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