inspect_connection_point

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that the computation is deterministic and emits a SHA-256 hash, which is genuine value for reproducibility, but says nothing about cost, failure modes when the node is unknown, or output size. A 3 against strong annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences: the output list first, the usage rule and boundary second. No filler, nothing to cut.

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 needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, the omittable connection_node parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, which is a real gap for a tool an agent is told to call first.

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 must carry the burden, and it does not. network_id is self-evident from its enum values, but connection_node (nullable, default null) is never explained — the agent cannot tell whether omitting it inspects a default PCC or fails.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and a concrete set of outputs (Thevenin impedance, R/X ratio, fault level, dV/dP, hash) tied to a named location (PCC). The explicit 'Does NOT run AC power flow' separates it from run_tier1_screen and run_tier2_ac_study, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

'Call this tool FIRST' gives explicit ordering guidance, and the negative clause rules out the AC-power-flow path. It stops short of naming the specific sibling it precedes (run_tier1_screen / run_tier2_ac_study), so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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