consumption_search_zurich

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond confirming it is a search. The description does not elaborate on pagination, result formatting, or potential limitations, but with annotations covering the core traits, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and a key example. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately defines the search scope. It mentions the specific dataset included, which adds context. However, it could briefly note that results are paginated via limit/offset, especially given openWorldHint, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain individual parameters (query, limit, offset, response_format) beyond their implicit meaning from names and types. It adds minimal value, so a score of 2 reflects this gap.

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 searches the Stadt Zuerich OGD catalogue for energy datasets, specifically mentioning the quarter-hour consumption time series for grid levels NE5 and NE7. This specifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes from the sibling consumption_search_bfe_datasets which likely targets a different catalogue.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for energy datasets from the Zurich OGD catalogue, particularly consumption time series. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling tool by specifying the catalogue, but does not give explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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