Compare sites across the fleet

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool ranks nodes by output, but it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or edge-case behaviors (e.g., what happens when nodes have missing data). The core ranking behavior is clear, but additional transparency would be valuable.

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 primary action and scope, followed by concrete use cases. Every sentence contributes purpose and context without redundancy. It is appropriately concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'rank them by output' but doesn't specify the format (e.g., a table, list, metric) or how the aggregation parameter affects the ranking. It also doesn't mention limits on the number of nodes or date-range constraints beyond the schema. For a comparison tool, more detail on the output shape is needed.

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 all parameters have description in the schema. The tool description adds the context of a shared date range and ranking by output, but it doesn't add syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Compare', 'rank') and resource ('several nodes'), with a clear scope (same date range, single query). It distinguishes itself from likely siblings like query_datum or get_energy by emphasizing cross-node comparison and ranking, so an agent can immediately tell 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 offers concrete use cases ('which sites are underperforming, how does this site compare to the rest, which node should I look at first') that clarify when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for single-node queries, so it's clear on the 'when' but not on the 'when-not'.

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