get_retirement_headroom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: it uses 'FILED data, not forecasts', lists return fields, mentions the meta.caveat about ISO reliability reviews, and explains the handoff to analyze_site. No contradictions with 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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then return fields, example, caveat, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition could be tightened (e.g., 'honesty:' could be integrated). Overall, efficient for the information conveyed.

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 fully explains return values including _entity, fields, substation details, queue pressure, and handoff. It covers all 5 parameters effectively and provides example usage. No gaps remain for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that target_mw is also passed as the handoff capacity_mw, clarifying region_iso uses actual ISO codes vs state lines, and noting fuel_filter uses substring matching. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Scans scheduled EIA-860M generator retirements to find near-term transmission grid headroom'. It uses a specific verb ('scans') and resource ('retirements') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_refined_queue and analyze_site.

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?

Provides an explicit example (target_mw=50 horizon_months=18 region_iso=MISO), explains when to use this tool vs alternatives ('Use to find WHERE capacity opens next; for what's already queued use get_refined_queue; for one site use analyze_site'), and includes a caveat about ISO review extensions.

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