energy_find_power_plants

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the data source (BFE-Layer ch.bfe.elektrizitaetsproduktionsanlagen), the optional category_filter behavior, and the maximum of 201 results per call. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and well-structured, using XML-style tags (<use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>) to separate sections. It front-loads the core purpose in a single sentence, then adds essential notes without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, use cases, source, optional filter, result limit, and a concrete example. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without deep schema exploration.

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 context signal indicates schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. The description mentions the category_filter and provides an example with lat, lon, radius_m, and category_filter, but it does not explicitly explain the semantics or bounds of lat/lon/radius_m. The schema does include descriptions for these fields, but from the agent's perspective (with 0% coverage), the description only partially fills the 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's function with the verb 'Sucht' (searches) and the resource 'Elektrizitätsproduktionsanlagen aller Typen' (electricity production plants of all types), listing specific types. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'aller Typen' and listing the categories, making it clear this is the general-purpose finder.

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 explicit use cases (Standortanalysen, Recherche, Schulprojekte) and an example invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., telling the agent to use energy_find_wind_turbines for wind-only queries). The sibling names and the 'aller Typen' phrasing imply the differentiation but do not explicitly state when to use alternatives.

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