get_renewable_energy

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context by detailing the return structure, data source ('EIA-860 + state RPS'), and optional lat/lon filtering for nearest projects within 50 miles.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by parameter details and return structure. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers parameters and return fields. It includes example usage and alternative tools, though it could mention that state is optional (no required params) but implies it with the example.

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%, but the description enriches parameter meaning by explaining energy_type options ('solar', 'wind', 'combined', omit for all), state format (2-letter code), and the optional nature of lat/lon with a distance constraint.

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: retrieving renewable energy data for a US state to support data center siting, PPA sizing, or RE100 feasibility. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternative tools for other contexts.

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 provides when to use the tool (e.g., 'Use when siting a renewable-powered data center') and when not to use it, with specific alternatives like get_grid_data and get_grid_scoreboard.

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