energy_find_hydro_plants

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the data source (ch.bfe.statistik-wasserkraftanlagen) and notes the output fields, but does not disclose behavior like pagination, result limits, ordering, or permission requirements. It provides moderate context beyond annotations, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 concise, with a clear main sentence followed by structured XML tags for use case, important notes, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. The example is slightly redundant with the schema descriptions but adds a practical touch.

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 search tool with three well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, use case, data source, and an example. It implies Swiss scope through the source and coordinate bounds, but does not explicitly state it. Still, the combination of description, schema, and annotations is sufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 tool description does not explain individual parameters; however, the input schema extensively describes lat, lon, and radius_m with examples, ranges, and defaults. The example in the description (lat=47.05, lon=8.31, radius_m=30000) provides a concrete usage hint. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds only minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific action (search for hydro plants around a location) with a specific resource (Wasserkraftwerke, including subtypes Lauf-, Speicher-, Pumpspeicher). It lists key output attributes (Leistung, Fallhöhe, Jahresproduktion), and the tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like wind turbines or PV installations.

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 an explicit use case ('Analyse der regionalen Wasserkraft, Infrastruktur-Recherche'), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of hydro plants and the mention of regional analysis make the intended use fairly clear.

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