List covered ISOs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the tool returns 'live ingest status' and is a prerequisite for other tools ('Call this first'), but it doesn't detail response format, edge cases, or the effect of the include_bas parameter. 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?

Two sentences, both purposeful: the first states the core function and output, the second gives critical usage ordering. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple, one-parameter list tool, the description covers what it lists (ISOs/RTOs and ingest status) and when to call it. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't need to enumerate return fields. It could mention more about include_bas behavior, but the schema already handles that, so the description is complete enough.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of the lone parameter 'include_bas' ('Include smaller balancing authorities. Default false.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'US ISOs/RTOs covered by Kardashev Labs' with additional detail 'live ingest status'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_load or get_lmp, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this first to discover valid iso codes for other tools,' providing clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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