Get Power Pipeline

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: data source (EIA-860M), nationwide coverage including non-ISO regions, status code meanings (P/L/T, U/V, TS), and that it returns a summary plus largest projects. This goes well beyond the annotations to set expectations for what the tool actually does.

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-structured: it leads with purpose, then scope, data fields, filters, return type, and exclusions, ending with a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects of this complex tool: exact use case, data source, geographic/regional scope, filterable attributes, return summary, and negative use cases. Since an output schema exists to detail the return structure, no critical information gaps remain.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed meanings, and the description largely restates this information (e.g., 'Filter by state (2-letter, e.g. VA), ba (balancing-authority/ISO code...)'). It adds an example invocation but no new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately identifies the tool's intent: 'Use when a user asks WHERE NEW POWER GENERATION is coming online (the forward supply pipeline)'. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_grid_intelligence / get_grid_data for operating capacity and get_pipeline for data-center projects, making its unique scope clear.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete user query examples and offers clear exclusions: 'Do NOT use for ALREADY-OPERATING capacity or grid headroom (use get_grid_intelligence / get_grid_data) or for data-center construction projects (use get_pipeline).' It also provides a practical example invocation ('Try: get_power_pipeline state=VA').

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