get_site_connection_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output (structured memo with traffic lights driven by published upstream signals) and clearly states what the tool does not provide. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, data freshness, or potential operational delays, which are minor 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?

Three well-structured sentences: scope ('GB-only per-site'), content ('Aggregates...'), and limitations ('Not a...'). Every sentence adds value and information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, aggregation logic, and key caveats despite lacking an output schema. It could be more explicit about the output format or data source timeliness, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool offers.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter (lat, lon, radius_km, project_name, capacity_kind). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond stating the report is per-site, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it aggregates existing Luminus tools into a structured memo with traffic lights, distinguishing it from sibling tools by naming those components. It also explicitly disclaims being a connection offer, capacity guarantee, or Gate 2 decision, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 use for a comprehensive per-site connection context, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as using individual tools (e.g., get_flood_risk alone). The 'Not a...' clauses provide exclusions but no direct 'when not to use' guidance compared to siblings.

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