nrel_solar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the specific data returned (monthly and annual irradiance) and the use case (solar panel potential), which is useful but does not detail response format, units, or any limits. It adds some context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and a clarifying use case in the second. No wasted words, and the structure is logical: what it does, then why it matters.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. The description tells what it returns (irradiance, potential) but lacks specifics like units or response structure. Without an output schema, more detail would be helpful, but the description is adequate for a straightforward lookup tool, though not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (lat and lon both have descriptions). The description adds minimal parameter insight—just 'any U.S. location' implying coordinates—but does not specify format (e.g., decimal degrees) or bounds. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description adds little beyond the baseline.

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's function: retrieving solar energy resource data (monthly and annual irradiance) for U.S. locations. It distinguishes from sibling NREL tools (fuel stations, utility rates) by focusing on solar irradiance and panel potential. The verb 'get' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage—if you need solar irradiance data, use this tool—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like nrel_fuel_stations or nrel_utility_rates. No when-not guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the resource type alone.

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