fi_energy_get_grid_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'full text,' which is useful output context, but says nothing about error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but with clear gaps for a data retrieval tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The core action is stated first and the return format follows immediately.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the return type ('full text'). It could mention error handling for invalid IDs, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented as 'Grid code document ID (from search results).' The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Fingrid grid code document') and clarifies retrieval is by database ID. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like fi_energy_search_grid_codes, though the 'by its database ID' phrasing implies a direct lookup rather than a search.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for fetching a known document ID, and the schema note '(from search results)' suggests it follows a search. However, the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as fi_energy_search_grid_codes.

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