power_plants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the dataset is static and threshold-limited (≥200 MW), but says nothing about result volume, whether all plants are returned on every call, or how the 'detail' level changes the response.

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 tight sentences with the scope (geography, capacity threshold, fields) front-loaded before the use case. Slightly telegraphic phrasing, but nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return fields needn't be explained, and the static nature is stated. However, the undocumented 'detail' parameter and the absence of any result-size or filtering context leave a real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single parameter 'detail' or its default 'short'. The agent has no idea what detail levels exist or what they change, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: 'WRI global power plants (≥200 MW)' with fields listed (name, fuel, capacity, country). It is unmistakable versus siblings like mineral_sites or osm_military_objects, though it never uses a retrieval verb (list/query), leaving the action implicit.

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 phrase 'static energy-infra targets to correlate strikes/outages against' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. Usage must be inferred from the correlation hint.

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