get_infrastructure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is supplementary. It adds that the tool returns raw assets and joins to HIFLD/EIA, but does not detail pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose with specific asset types. It includes an example and a warning, all in a single paragraph without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (distance, capacity) and the data sources. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role, though more detail on output fields would improve completeness.

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% for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example command and explains the returned assets, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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 retrieves nearby infrastructure assets including substations, transmission lines, pipelines, and power plants for a given location. It distinguishes from analyze_site by explicitly stating not to use for a scored verdict.

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 an example usage and explicitly warns against using for single scored site-suitability, directing to analyze_site. However, it does not enumerate all alternative tools or elaborate on when to use this versus other infrastructure tools.

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