get_power_pipeline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: nationwide coverage including non-ISO regions, filtering options, and return format (summary + largest projects). 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that is front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is concise but comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, no output schema), the description provides complete context: what data sources (EIA-860M), geographical coverage (nationwide), filter options, and return contents. The rich annotations and schema further reduce the need for additional explanation.

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% with descriptions for all five parameters. The description enhances this by providing examples (e.g., 'state=VA') and clarifying status codes (P/L/T, U/V, TS) and balancing authority codes (PJM, ERCO, etc.), adding value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: reporting where new power generation is coming online, with specific details on inputs and outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_grid_intelligence and get_pipeline by explicitly stating what it covers and what it does not.

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 provides when to use the tool ('Use when a user asks WHERE NEW POWER GENERATION is coming online') and when not to use it, naming alternative tools (get_grid_intelligence, get_grid_data, get_pipeline). This gives 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.