tariff_get_median_swiss

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety information. It adds behavioral context by specifying the data is aggregated across all operators and filtered by year and category. This sufficiently discloses the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and usage in the second. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema. The description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on how parameters affect results (e.g., limit controls result count) and the output format. Given the low complexity of the tool, the description is minimally complete but could be improved by explaining the remaining parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'by year and category', which maps to period_from/period_to and category parameters, but it does not explain 'limit' (default 200) or 'response_format' (json/markdown). It also lacks detail on valid category values or year formatting. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient to fully convey parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Swiss median electricity tariff', and the scope 'across all distribution operators' with dimensions 'by year and category'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tariff_get_by_municipality and tariff_get_median_canton by specifying it's the Swiss-wide median, useful as a benchmark.

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 explicitly states the tool is 'Useful as benchmark for individual municipality tariffs', providing clear guidance on when to use it. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context from sibling tools implies that more granular queries exist. A score of 4 reflects the clear usage context given.

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