get_energy_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the exact return fields, real-time nature, and attribution requirement (CC-BY-4.0). No contradictions.

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 thorough but efficient. Every sentence serves a purpose: usage condition, example, parameter list, return fields, attribution, and exclusions. Minor repetition (listing ISOs twice) could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters with full schema, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, how to attribute, what it does not cover, and data freshness. No gaps remain for an AI agent.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context (lists the seven ISOs, provides example) but also claims 'iso (required)' while the schema does not mark iso as required. This inconsistency slightly reduces clarity.

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 specific use case ('what does power/gas COST in <ISO> right now?'), identifies the exact resource (live energy pricing for 7 US ISOs), and explicitly distinguishes itself from three sibling tools. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use (when a user asks about cost), includes an example invocation with the required parameter, and lists three alternative tools with clear use-case exclusions. This fully satisfies the dimension.

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