get_market_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: read-only, free, no API key (auth/cost profile), month must be current or earlier (valid-input constraint), and 'share of time it answered' quietly discloses that data can be missing. It does not cover rate limits, pagination, or response size, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loads the access/cost attributes in a three-word clause, then the payload, then the format hint — dense prose with no filler. The trailing 'Month as YYYY-MM' duplicates both the opening scope sentence and the schema pattern, which is the only wasted clause.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must define the return shape, and it does so in useful detail (per-venue statistics plus hourly medians). Remaining gaps are the unmentioned network parameter and the absence of any note on volume, pagination, or timeouts.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the YYYY-MM pattern and the network enum. The description's 'Month as YYYY-MM' merely restates the schema and it never mentions the network parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond the baseline.

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/resource (monthly energy-market summary) and enumerates exactly what is produced: per-venue min/median/max price, reading counts, uptime share, and hourly median price in UTC. It distinguishes itself functionally from raw-price siblings like get_prices/get_price_history by being an aggregate, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied: the described output (per-venue and by-hour aggregates over one month) signals when this tool is the right choice versus raw price endpoints, and the schema pins the month to the current month or earlier. There is no explicit when/when-not and no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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