get_embedded_capacity_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that UKPN supports spatial matching while SPEN returns results alphabetically without coordinates, and that an API key is required for both operators. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover rate limits or response structure.

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 three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, operator-specific behavior, and authentication requirement. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler.

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 rich schema, the description covers the main functionality, operator differences, and API key requirement. However, it omits ENWL and the 'all' operator option from the description, and is missing guidance on output/pagination, preventing a perfect score.

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 already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operator-specific context (e.g., SPEN has no coordinates, affecting radius_km), but does not provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the UKPN and SPEN Embedded Capacity Register, showing connected/accepted generation and storage near a location with energy source, capacity, and connection status. However, it only names UKPN and SPEN while the schema also supports ENWL and 'all', which is a slight omission that affects full clarity.

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 implies the tool is for getting embedded capacity data from UKPN/SPEN near a location, and mentions operator-specific behavior (spatial vs alphabetical). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools or when to avoid it, so guidance is present but not explicit.

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