pgiq_developments

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

With no annotations, the description discloses ordering ('newest first') and optional filtering, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention data freshness, limits, or the meaning of 'cited', leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining purpose and optional filter. Highly efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and filtering. It lacks details on output structure or pagination, but is sufficient for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description's mention of 'optionally filter to one market' restates the schema description without adding new semantics. No enrichment of parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool provides recent dated, cited grid developments (moratoria, tariffs, queue reforms, big builds) across markets, sorted newest first. It specifies an optional filter, distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like pgiq_best or pgiq_grid.

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 implies when to use (to get recent developments) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. No exclusions or context for alternative tools.

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