fi_energy_search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, permissions, or the response shape. For a search tool with zero structured annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb and the covered decision domains with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry behavioral context, but it only covers topical scope. For a 3-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, this is the minimum viable level – an agent can call it, but knows nothing about result behavior.

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%: the query, limit, and decision_type parameters are all documented in the schema, including enum values and example query terms. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (Energiavirasto decisions) and enumerates three covered domains: network pricing decisions, market supervision rulings, and emissions trading decisions. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like fi_energy_search_regulations and fi_energy_search_grid_codes, though it never names them explicitly.

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 implies a search use case but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this over fi_energy_search_regulations or fi_energy_search_grid_codes, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer routing from the resource noun alone.

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