compare_regions

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data aggregation details, performance implications for many regions, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only provides basic usage info.

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 concise, with a clear purpose and example, followed by parameter details. The example is helpful, though the 'Args' section could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 there is an output schema and sibling tools exist, the description adequately distinguishes the tool and explains inputs. It could be more complete by mentioning that the output includes both average and peak metrics, or by noting that region codes can be obtained via list_regions.

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?

The description explains the start and end parameters with date format and inclusiveness, and clarifies the optional regions parameter defaults to all. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially but does not specify accepted region codes or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 states it compares average and peak demand across regions over a date range, with a specific example of use, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like peak_demand or daily_demand.

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 provides an example question to indicate when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for single-region queries.

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