run_tier1_screen

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: sub-10ms runtime, season-stratified voltage calibration at 1.0752 pu, thermal margin checks, post-contingency N-1 SCR threshold (NER S5.2.5 SCR >= 2.0), and Pareto joint hosting capacity. It also names the two output flags that drive escalation decisions.

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 correctly: what it does, what it returns, and what it is not, before the technical detail. The middle paragraph is dense with domain jargon and could be tightened, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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 the description need not document return values, and the safety profile comes from annotations. However, for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and multiple enums (network_id, asset_type, inverter_mode), leaving every parameter undocumented makes the definition only minimally viable.

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?

All 8 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply meaning and it supplies none — asset_type, bess_power_kw, inverter_mode, connection_node, operating_load_factor, and feeder_background_scale are never mentioned or explained. The numeric thresholds quoted (1.0752 pu, SCR >= 2.0) are screening criteria, not parameter semantics, so they do not close 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculates fast short-circuit and voltage screening'), declares the output type ('Returns a pass/fail'), and explicitly negates the adjacent capability ('Does NOT run full AC power flow'). This cleanly separates it from run_tier2_ac_study without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit escalation rule: use `fast_clear_eligible` and `flagged_for_tier2` to decide whether to escalate to `run_tier2_ac_study`, naming the alternative directly. It stops short of stating preconditions (e.g., that network_id should come from list_networks) or cases where Tier 2 should be run first, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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