amber_sites

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds scope information by stating results are limited to "the authenticated user," implying credential-bound, user-scoped results, but says nothing about return shape, error behavior for bad keys, or whether the api_key parameter can be omitted in favor of ambient credentials.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it omits any structuring that would help an agent route to it in a multi-step Amber workflow.

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 list tool with annotations and no output schema, some brevity is acceptable. However, the agent gets no idea what a "site" object contains (an id/address) or that those identifiers feed amber_current_price and amber_forecast, which is the key context this tool needs to supply.

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 single api_key parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no description here explaining whether it is required, optional, or defaulted from the environment. "Authenticated user" hints that api_key selects the account, but it does not tell the agent how the value is supplied, which is a meaningful gap at 0% coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get Amber Electric sites") and scopes it to the authenticated user, which is clear enough for an agent to select it over non-Amber or non-site tools. It does not differentiate from siblings such as amber_current_price or amber_forecast, which would help the agent understand whether this tool is a prerequisite for them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention that the returned sites are likely the input required by amber_current_price and amber_forecast, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the call ordering from the sibling names alone.

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