dashboard_get_storage_lakes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds beyond annotations by specifying the exact data returned (current fill, 5-year envelope, time series). No contradictory information. It would benefit from mentioning pagination or limits, but overall transparent.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key details, with zero wasted words. Every part adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate so), description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose and scope well. However, it could mention default behaviors or limitations (e.g., max limit_weeks) for completeness.

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 only 33% (only 'region' has a description: 'Region selector.'). Description does not explain the other parameters (limit_weeks, response_format) beyond their existence in the schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

Description clearly states specific verb (Get) and resource (storage-lake fill levels) with scope (Switzerland or region) and data details (% and GWh, 5-year envelope, full time series). Sibling tools like dashboard_get_production_mix are distinct, so no confusion.

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?

Description implicitly signals usage context by calling it a critical indicator for winter supply security. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the siblings are clearly different data domains, so agents can infer usage easily.

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