get_power_pipeline

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint: explains coverage (nationwide, includes non-ISO), return structure (summary + largest projects), and filtering. Lacks details on rate limits or data freshness, but is otherwise thorough.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the use case, then details data and filters, and ends with negative guidance. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, earning a high score.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains most aspects but misses the 'limit' parameter and does not fully detail the output format beyond summary and largest projects. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful parameter explanations (state, ba, status with example codes, min_mw) and an example query. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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 specifies the tool returns new power generation pipeline data from EIA-860M, including non-ISO regions, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_grid_intelligence and get_pipeline for different use cases.

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 states when to use: 'Use when a user asks WHERE NEW POWER GENERATION is coming online', and provides explicit negative guidance: 'Do NOT use for ALREADY-OPERATING capacity or grid headroom...or for data-center construction projects', naming alternative tools.

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