get_pipeline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the return format includes project details with fields and pagination, and mentions the pipeline size (540+ projects, 369 GW). 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 somewhat long but well-organized: purpose, example, parameter guide, return format, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes value. Could be slightly more concise but remains 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return structure, parameter details, pagination, and provides useful context (pipeline size). All 7 parameters are described with examples, and the overall behavior is clear.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining parameter usage with concrete examples (e.g., market=northern-virginia, status=construction) and clarifying enum-like options for status. It also explains the meaning of parameters like min_capacity_mw and expected_completion_before in context.

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 provides forward-looking construction pipeline data for projects being built, announced, or permitted. It gives specific examples like 'what data centers are under construction in Northern Virginia' and distinguishes from siblings by excluding operational facilities and M&A deal flow.

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 when to use (for forward-looking pipeline) and when not to use (for operational facilities or M&A deals) with named alternative tools search_facilities and list_transactions. Provides concrete example queries.

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