get_power_plants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the data source (OPSD) and return fields (name, capacity, fuel, location, year), which is useful. Yet it omits details on pagination, rate limits, or how multiple filters interact, leaving moderate transparency gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's identity and scope, and each sentence contributes essential information about the registry, its fields, and filtering options.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the data source, returned fields, and filter options. The schema fills in parameter specifics, so the description is nearly complete. Minor additions like result limits or data update frequency could improve it but are not critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well described (e.g., ISO country code, case-insensitive partial match, default min capacity). The description's 'Filter by country/fuel/capacity' simply lists the same parameter names without adding syntax or format details, providing no additional value beyond the schema.

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 a 'European power plant registry from OPSD' and lists the fields (name, capacity, fuel, location, year) and filter options. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transmission_lines or get_gb_grid_demand.

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 clarifies that the tool is for European power plant data and mentions filtering by country, fuel, and capacity, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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