Grid Transition Radar

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints, the description discloses that the output includes an ISO rollup, grid-headroom leaderboard, and that the transition thesis requires a paid key. It also characterizes the predictive nature of the signal (BUILD verdict + headroom + time-to-power), adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 compactly structured: purpose, returns, paid upgrade, predictive positioning, example invocation, and explicit exclusions. Although somewhat long, each sentence serves a distinct function and is front-loaded with the core definition.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no enums, output schema provided) and the description covers purpose, output contents, paid-key behavior, representative example, and routing to alternatives. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents limit and max_months. The description adds only a 'Try: max_months=24' usage example and a semantic tie to time-to-power, which meets the baseline but doesn't deepen parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb+resource: a forward-looking radar that returns emerging US markets+ISOs with a near-term emergence signal. It explicitly distinguishes itself from retrospective reports and names siblings get_interconnection_queue and rank_markets, so there is no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly tells agents when to use it ('where should I be looking next') and when not to use it, naming alternatives: 'Do NOT use for the current ISO queue snapshot (use get_interconnection_queue) or a present-day market ranking (use rank_markets).' This is strong routing guidance.

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