classify_screening_regime

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a screening classifier, not an AC power-flow simulation, which sets correct expectations about fidelity and cost.

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?

Front-loaded and compact: the core function plus scope plus one exclusion, with no filler. The trailing fragment is slightly awkward but efficient overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a non-trivial analytical tool with opaque network IDs and asset types, the description leaves the agent without guidance on parameter meaning or expected fidelity, which is a meaningful gap.

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 carries the full burden for 4 parameters (network_id, proposed_capacity_kw, asset_type, connection_node) and says nothing about any of them. The enums are somewhat self-describing, but the description adds no meaning about units, enum semantics, or how parameters interact.

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 action (classify which physical constraint binds first: Voltage, Thermal, or N-1 SCR) and names the scope across LV/MV/Transmission. The verb+resource is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the AC-power-flow siblings, though the framing term '3D Master Vertical Grid Matrix' is unexplained jargon.

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 'Does NOT run AC power flow' clause implicitly routes AC studies to run_tier2_ac_study, but usage is only implied rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance versus siblings like run_tier1_screen or screen_connection_application.

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