Construction Pipeline

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context: return shape, pagination, the lack of a market parameter, and filtering guidance. It loses one point for a small internal ambiguity: status includes 'operational' while the description says not to use it for already-operational facilities. This does not contradict the 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 dense but well organized into purpose, example, parameters, return shape, and exclusions. Every segment earns its place and the most important routing information is front-loaded.

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 7-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it covers when to use, how to construct queries, what parameters mean, what the response looks like, and which sibling tools to use instead. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete value: explicit status enum values, ISO-2 country example, ISO date format with an example, operator examples, MW threshold guidance, and pagination mention. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 states a specific purpose: answering 'what is being built / announced / permitted' via the forward-looking construction pipeline. It clearly distinguishes this tool from search_facilities and list_transactions, so an agent can tell when to use it versus siblings.

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?

It opens with an explicit 'Use when' condition and provides a concrete example query. It also states exactly when not to use it ('Do NOT use for already-operational facilities' or 'M&A deal flow') and names the alternative tools, plus warns that there is no market parameter.

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