get_distribution_headroom

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that this is a public lookup, finds specific data, and explicitly states what it is not ('Not a connection offer or firm capacity right'). It does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or mention rate limits, but the nature of the operation is clear.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and each sentence adds distinct value (scope, data types, limitations). No 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose, the DNO scope, the output content (sites, headroom, constraints, reinforcement timing), and a key caveat. It could specify response format or that results are estimates, but overall it is complete enough for a 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 provides 100% coverage of parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does reinforce the operator list and adds the 'key' qualifier for some DNOs, but the schema already explains lat/lon, limit, radius_km, and operator values.

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 specific verbs ('lookup', 'Finds') and identifies the exact resource (DNO headroom for five named GB operators). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the data types (GSP/BSP/primary sites, generation and demand headroom, constraints, reinforcement timing) and adds a limitation disclaimer ('Not a connection offer').

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 states which operators are covered and that it uses public data, giving clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_grid_connection_queue for queue data'), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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