energy_find_wind_turbines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond this by naming the data source (ch.bfe.windenergieanlagen), noting the regional concentration of wind turbines, and mentioning the result fields — useful behavioral details without contradicting the safe-read annotation.

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 structured with XML tags for use_case, important_notes, and example, each earning its place. The main sentence is front-loaded and direct, followed by brief, valuable notes. Slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence style, but every part adds meaningful guidance.

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?

This is a simple spatial-search tool with three parameters and an output schema available. The description covers the purpose, use case, relevant background (Swiss regions), and a concrete example, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description does not need to explain that.

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 description does not explicitly define parameters, but the example (lat=47.22, lon=7.05, radius_m=30000) demonstrates usage, and the important notes clarify the radius_m maximum. The input schema itself provides per-parameter descriptions, so the description adds complementary illustrative context rather than leaving the agent without guidance.

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 uses 'Sucht Windenergieanlagen im Umkreis eines Standorts' (searches for wind turbines in the vicinity of a location), which clearly specifies the action and resource. It also lists the data points returned (operator, manufacturer, model, hub height, power), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other energy types.

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 ('Recherche zu Windkraft-Standorten, regionale Energieplanung') and important notes about Swiss wind farm distribution and radius recommendations, guiding when and how to use the tool effectively. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool list makes the specialization obvious.

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