nrel_utility_rates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited value. It does add that rates are expressed in $/kWh and covers utility identification, but it does not disclose behaviors like response format, rate tiers, or handling of non-U.S. inputs.

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 only two sentences and gets straight to the point, front-loading the main action and resource. It has no filler, although it could be even stronger by explicitly naming sibling alternatives in the second sentence, but it still earns a high score for efficiency.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to initiate a call but does not specify return value shape, rate tiers, or failure cases for invalid locations. It is adequate but could be more complete for a production-grade tool.

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% and both parameters (lat, lon) have clear descriptions with examples. The description adds the U.S. scope and the output unit ($/kWh), but it mostly repeats what the schema already states, so it only slightly exceeds 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource (residential, commercial, and industrial electricity rates), and a scope (any U.S. location via lat/long). This distinguishes it from related siblings like nrel_fuel_stations or nrel_solar, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives clear usage context (provide latitude/longitude to get utility rates) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like other nrel tools or eia_electricity, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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