fi_energy_search_grid_codes

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 discloses nothing about read-only nature, response shape, ranking, or rate limits. The only implicit trait is that 'Search' is a read operation, which is left for the agent to assume.

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 naming the verb and the covered content domains with no filler. It is efficient, though it wastes no words partly because it says so little.

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 three-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks the disambiguation from sibling regulation/decision search tools and any behavioral hints, which for a retrieval tool is a meaningful but not fatal gap.

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%, with query, limit, and code_type all documented including enum values and a concrete query example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and a concrete resource domain (Fingrid grid codes, balancing rules, reserve market regulations, Datahub requirements). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling fi_energy_search_regulations, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite five closely related siblings (search_regulations, get_grid_code, search_decisions, get_regulation). The agent must infer the boundary between this and the regulations search entirely on its own.

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