get_carbon_intensity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It specifies input format (ISO datetime), expected granularity options, and return type (JSON string with time series and statistics). It does not mention any destructive or side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only data 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief explanation, then organized Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return type. All necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: start_date and end_date with ISO format examples, and time_granularity with default value and possible values ('raw, hour, day, fifteen_minutes'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get carbon intensity over time (gCO2/kWh)'. It specifies the resource (carbon intensity) and the action (get). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on carbon intensity, while siblings cover demand, generation mix, prices, etc.

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 provides usage context via examples showing different time granularities. It explains that lower values indicate cleaner energy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide comparisons to alternative tools among the siblings.

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