site_selection_canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds context: the tool is a single call that performs multiple stages, mentions free vs paid key limitations, and gives a high-level flow. No additional behavioral surprises needed.

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 front-loads the main purpose but becomes somewhat lengthy with examples and exclusions. It could be more concise, but the structure is logical and information-dense.

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 (ranked shortlist, decision layer with #1 pick, why, build sequence, risk flags) and includes an example. It also covers free vs paid access and differentiates from siblings, making it complete for a complex tool.

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% and only 3 of 5 parameters (capacity_mw, region, max_months) are mentioned in the example; the remaining parameters (verdict, limit) are not explained. The description adds meaning for the mentioned ones but fails to cover all parameters comprehensively.

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 does guided end-to-end data-center site selection, specifying inputs (capacity, geography, deadline) and outputs (ranked shortlist, synthesis decision). It distinguishes from siblings 'analyze_site' and 'get_dchub_recommendation', making purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use (for full find->rank->shortlist->verdict flow) and when not to use (for a single known parcel or open-ended question), with alternative tools named. Provides an example invocation for clarity.

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