Get energy dashboard info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it names the underlying WS endpoint (energy/info), says the payload is returned unchanged, and documents the error shape {"error": str(e)}. It stops short of discussing auth or rate limits, but for a read-only metadata call that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by labeled sections (Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors). Every line carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 the description is not obliged to explain return values, yet it still identifies the endpoint and payload semantics. Combined with the explicit exclusion of the sibling tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and adds no misleading parameter hints.

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 and resource ('Return Energy Dashboard info such as cost sensors and currency') and immediately names the sibling it is not (energy_get_energy_prefs). An agent can distinguish this metadata lookup from the prefs/source-config tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause scopes it to dashboard metadata (cost sensor types, currency) as opposed to source configuration, and an explicit 'Not for' clause routes the agent to energy_get_energy_prefs. Both the positive and negative conditions are spelled out.

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