site_selection_canvas

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a non-destructive query operation. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the tool is a single call that produces a shortlist and, with a paid key, a decision layer including risk flags. No contradictions, and the description enriches understanding of behavior.

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 a single paragraph that includes both high-level purpose and detailed output enumeration, plus an example. While informative, it is somewhat wordy and could be more concise by splitting into structured parts or trimming redundant phrases.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no enums), the description covers the main workflow and example inputs but omits return format details, error handling, and the exact meaning of the 'verdict' and 'limit' parameters. The mention of a paid key dependency adds useful context, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'capacity target', 'geography', and 'deadline' corresponding to capacity_mw, region, and max_months, but does not explain the 'limit' and 'verdict' parameters. The example illustrates three of five parameters, leaving two undocumented. This is insufficient.

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 is a 'guided end-to-end data-center site selection' tool, specifying inputs (capacity target, geography, deadline) and outputs (ranked shortlist with DCPI verdict, excess-power headroom, time-to-power, ISO, and optionally a synthesis decision layer). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rank_markets' or 'compare_sites'.

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 provides an example use case ('Try: site_selection_canvas capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24') and implies when to use (when needing end-to-end site selection). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'rank_markets' or 'analyze_site'.

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