Energy Prices

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'one round trip, no planner overhead,' the real-time grid-status flag, the as_of timestamp, and the attribution requirement (DC Hub, CC-BY-4.0). It also explains why cheapest price alone is insufficient (headroom).

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 long but well structured, beginning with routing guidance, then a use case, example, return fields, and explicit exclusions. Every section is purposeful, though the dense semicolon-heavy flow could be tightened. It is not tautological and earns its length given sibling overlap.

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 tool with 3 params, output schema, and many nearby siblings, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context: exact input pattern, example, return shape, attribution, and explicit tool boundaries. Nothing a user or agent needs is missing.

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% and each parameter is already described with allowed values and examples. The description renames iso as required (though schema shows no required array) and provides an example, but does not materially extend meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a clear 'FRONT DOOR CHECK' and identifies the resource: live energy pricing for the 7 US ISOs. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming related tools for adjacent tasks (get_grid_data, get_grid_intelligence, get_gas_economics) and stating what it does NOT do.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: if the user wants today's price for one ISO, use this tool; if price is one factor in a sizing or market-comparison question, call execute_plan. It also names alternative tools for fuel mix, headroom, and gas-to-grid economics, removing ambiguity.

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