get_gas_index

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it is a read operation without mutation. It discloses the behavior: returns a composite score, with breakdown per state or national ranking, and includes a verdict. 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 well-structured: it starts with the tool name and purpose, then details parameters, provides usage examples, and ends with exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description adequately explains the return values (composite scores, pipeline count, verdict) and includes attribution requirements. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. For 'state', it explains it's a 2-letter code with example 'TX' and behavior when omitted (national ranking). For 'limit', it only says 'optional', but the schema provides min/max. The description adds significant value for 'state' but could elaborate more on 'limit'.

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 returns the Data Center Gas Index (DCGI), a 0-100 per-US-state natural-gas suitability score for data centers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_grid_data and get_energy_prices by specifying its unique focus on gas suitability.

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 explicitly states when to use (for gas suitability) and when not to use (for electricity grid, power headroom, live gas pricing), and even names specific alternatives (get_grid_data, get_grid_intelligence, get_energy_prices). This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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