Get solar forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance beyond that: results are weather-based estimates rather than measured output, and the forecast horizon is 7 days. It does not mention rate limits or response granularity.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the endpoint and purpose, then packs parameter hints and sibling pairing into a readable clause. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly: the return metric (estimated kWh), the horizon (7 days), and the input scope (US ZIP plus watts). A minor gap is that it does not say whether the forecast is returned as a daily breakdown or a single aggregate value.

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 100%, so both zipCode and capacityW are fully documented in the schema, including their fallback behavior. The description repeats the unit example (10000 = 10 kW) already present in the schema and adds little parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a 7-day estimated kWh forecast from a solar array, and it scopes this to home/small-business use. Sibling tools cover miners, rigs, profitability, and market data, so this solar-specific purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It explains that the forecast is weather-based production only, and it recommends pairing with calculate_profitability or list_miners for miner profit. That gives clear context and complementary alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (for example, for metered actual production).

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