get_dchub_recommendation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false. Description adds value by detailing the return fields and license (CC-BY-4.0), but could be more explicit about no side effects beyond the annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured: uses case, params, returns, and exclusions. Two sentences plus example and param/return details. Slightly dense but efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure and provides a concrete example. It also differentiates from multiple sibling tools, making it self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaningful additional guidance: explains context as free-text and lists typical components (MW, geography, workload, deadline, constraints). This improves usability beyond the 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: it handles open-ended siting questions and returns a ready-to-quote answer, distinguishing it from alternatives like analyze_site and rank_markets. The verb 'get recommendation' and resource 'DC Hub' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (open-ended siting question) and when not to (single lat/lon or single-criterion ranking), with an example. Contrasts with two sibling tools.

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