Get Estonia next-day electricity prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: 15-minute granularity plus hourly averages, Europe/Tallinn local time, with-and-without-VAT, and dual units. It also states what is excluded (supplier margin, network charges, excise, other fees). It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a zero-param read tool this is a strong disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return-shape and exclusion caveats. Every clause adds information; nothing is padded.

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 need not be re-explained, yet the description usefully summarizes granularity, timezone, VAT treatment, and units, and clarifies fees are excluded. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 (Get), resource (next-day Nord Pool prices), and geographic scope (Estonia), which cleanly separates it from get_estonia_current_day_prices and get_estonia_prices_for_hour. An agent can route on the name/description alone without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the 'next-day' qualifier against the 'current day' and 'for hour' siblings, but the description never explicitly says when to pick this tool over them or adds any prerequisite/exclusion. It is adequate but leaves the routing inference to the agent.

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