Get Solar Potential

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. It usefully discloses the external data source (PVGIS, European Commission JRC) and the output set, but says nothing about it being a read-only computation, latency of the external call, or what happens for out-of-coverage references.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and source, followed by the concrete deliverables and coverage. No filler or redundancy beyond the country list, which itself is useful scoping.

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, the description's enumeration of returned metrics (kWp, production, savings, payback, CO2, tilt/orientation) does the necessary work of setting expectations. Only edge behavior outside the supported countries is left unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in schema, including the enum and the auto-detect fallback. The description's country list merely repeats the enum and adds no syntax or format detail for 'reference'.

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 (estimate) and resource (photovoltaic potential of a parcel), names the authoritative source (PVGIS / EC JRC), and enumerates the concrete outputs returned. No sibling tool touches solar data, and the stated country scope further pins down the capability.

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 supported-country list implicitly tells the agent when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' framing and no named alternative among the parcel siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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