pgiq_rating

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the output content (five-pillar scores, rationale, tier, etc.) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or error handling. The description adds value but could be more transparent about behavioral traits beyond what is implied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place, making it 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, input, and output components. It could improve by briefly noting the return structure (e.g., a JSON object with specified fields), but it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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% (one parameter 'market'). The description adds examples ('quebec', 'ercot', 'ireland') and references pgiq_markets for listing IDs, which provides meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full PGIQ Rating and evidence for one market', listing specific components like five-pillar scores and rationale. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing a deep read on a specific market, while siblings like pgiq_markets cover listing or other views.

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 includes the explicit phrase 'Use for a deep read on a specific market', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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