get_eu_frequency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real-time nature and the interpretive meaning of deviations, but does not mention data source, update frequency, or coverage specifics. Some behavioral context is added, but limitations remain unstated.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the measurement units, status, and domain meaning, with no redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the primary output.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers what data is returned (frequency, deviation, status) and adds interpretive value about deviations. It could specify the data source or whether the value is a European aggregate, but it is otherwise complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately 4.

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 provides real-time EU grid frequency with specific measurements (Hz, mHz) and status, making the resource and scope explicit. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, none of which cover grid frequency.

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 retrieving EU frequency data, and the context note about deviations signaling imbalance suggests when it is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, though no sibling covers frequency.

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