grid_transition_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the tool's predictive nature and internal logic (BUILD verdict, excess-power headroom, short time-to-power), plus the paid-key feature, without contradicting 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 slightly lengthy but well-structured: core purpose first, then details, then explicit exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden. It adequately describes the output types (markets, ISOs, rollup, leaderboard, thesis), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit and max_months). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, only providing an example usage with max_months=24. Baseline 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 clearly states it's a forward-looking radar for emerging grid markets, specifying the outputs (US markets, ISOs, rollup, leaderboard, thesis) and distinguishing it from retrospective reports and sibling tools like get_interconnection_queue and rank_markets.

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 context ('Forward-looking... radar') and direct exclusions with alternatives: 'Do NOT use for the current ISO queue snapshot (use get_interconnection_queue) or a present-day market ranking (use rank_markets).'

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