CO2 intensity of Finnish electricity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (Fingrid dataset 396), units, geography, and the presence of a comparison and non-fossil share, but it omits data freshness/latency, what 'recent window' means, and any output/return details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: metric, units, dataset, comparison, and secondary output are packed efficiently. Nothing extraneous is present.

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?

For a tool with one configurable parameter and no output schema, the description should explain how hoursBack affects the result and what the return values contain. It only partially names the returned concepts (emission factor, non-fossil share) and leaves the comparison window and parameter behavior unclear.

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 the description never mentions the sole parameter hoursBack or how it relates to the 'recent window'. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to its name and schema range/default, so the description adds no semantic value.

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 metric and scope: 'Current emission factor of electricity consumed in Finland' with units gCO2/kWh, dataset 396, comparison to a recent window, and non-fossil share. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like fingrid_series or fingrid_dataset, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as fingrid_grid_snapshot or fingrid_cheap_hours. The phrase 'vs the recent window' implies a comparative current reading but does not route the agent among alternatives.

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