opendss_get_line_flows

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful non-annotation context: results are sorted by current descending and only response_format in the params is honored.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then scopes and formats, with clean Args/Returns sections. There is minor redundancy in restating return values that the output schema already carries, but no waste elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be spelled out, and the description still adds the sort order. Purpose, scope, and the critical param caveat are all present; the only gap is no alternative-tool routing.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does the key disambiguation: it notes that of the VoltageInput fields (kv_max, kv_min, response_format) only response_format is used, warning the agent that the kV filters are ignored. It does not explain the markdown/json enum, but that is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: getting P, Q, and max current for every line, which is clearly distinct from voltage/load siblings. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against near-neighbors like opendss_get_loading or opendss_get_voltages, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

'Useful for identifying overloaded lines and understanding power distribution' implies when it helps, but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as opendss_get_loading or opendss_violations. Usage is only inferred, not directed.

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