Site Selection Canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond this by disclosing the paid-key gating of the synthesis decision layer, the one-call find-to-verdict flow, and the default verdict behavior when markets are all AVOID. It also names the output fields an agent should expect, which is valuable 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 dense but efficient: it states the outcome, lists output components, gives an example, and provides explicit exclusions—all in a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool's complexity, the output schema, and the rich sibling context, the description is complete. It conveys the intended workflow, output composition, paid-tier limitation, and routing guidance, while the schema covers parameter details. An agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping high-level inputs ('capacity target + geography + deadline') to specific parameters and providing a concrete example with realistic values. This lifts it above mere schema repetition, though the schema still does most of the parameter-documentation work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Guided end-to-end data-center site selection.' It enumerates concrete outputs (ranked shortlist, DCPI verdict, excess-power headroom, time-to-power, ISO, paid synthesis layer) and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming analyze_site and get_dchub_recommendation. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives an explicit 'Do NOT use for...' section with named alternatives and the exact condition for each exclusion. It also provides a runnable example invocation (capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24), making it clear when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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