get_gas_intelligence

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: it returns a per-state brief fusing multiple data sources, deliberately omits certain data (gas storage, LNG, firm capacity), and states that every field carries a data_basis label and that delivered price is never fabricated. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage condition, then details parameters and return structure. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. It could be more concise, but the structure is logical and effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively lists return fields, explains their meaning, and notes what is omitted. For a complex tool integrating multiple data sources, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and 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?

The description adds meaning for the 'region' parameter by specifying it accepts US state codes or names (e.g., 'TX', 'Texas'). However, the schema also includes a 'state' parameter which is not addressed, leaving ambiguity. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 it retrieves gas-fired or behind-the-meter power economics for data centers in US states. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'gas intelligence per state', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_grid_intelligence and get_gas_index.

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 says 'Use when a human asks about gas-fired or behind-the-meter power economics' and provides clear alternatives: 'Do NOT use for electricity grid headroom (use get_grid_intelligence) or the DCGI score alone (use get_gas_index).'

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