nrel_solar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. It adds context about the data content (monthly/annual irradiance) and the output's interpretive value (solar panel potential), but does not disclose specifics like return format, units, or error handling. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the second sentence adds a practical use-case without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description conveys the essential purpose, data type, and a real-world application. It lacks details on return structure or units, but these are not critical for this straightforward read-only lookup 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?

The schema fully covers both parameters (lat and lon) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. It reinforces the geographic scope (U.S. location) but does not specify formats or bounds.

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's function: getting solar energy resource data (monthly and annual solar irradiance) for any U.S. location. It also adds a use-case ('Shows potential for solar panels'), which further clarifies intent and distinguishes it from sibling NREL tools like fuel stations or utility rates.

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 implies when to use the tool: when solar resource/irradiance data for a U.S. location is needed, with a practical application (solar panel potential). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other tools.

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