Find power plants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns both plants and generators, sorted by distance, and filterable. It also lists the reported attributes. It doesn't explicitly state read-only-ness, but 'Locate' and 'Reports' imply it. Minor gaps like the exclusion of facilities without output when min_output_mw is set are handled in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It spends only two sentences to convey purpose, scope, output fields, sorting, and filtering, without redundantly repeating schema information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is well-rounded: it specifies the search subject (plants and generators), the key return fields (energy source, method, electrical output, operator), and behavioral details like sorting and filtering. Defaults and limits are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'filterable by source and minimum output' which is already documented in the schema.

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 it 'locate[s] electricity production facilities' and explicitly differentiates between power plants and standalone generators, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_power_infrastructure. The verb 'Locate' plus specific resource types makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: the tool searches around a location and can be filtered by energy source and minimum output. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is well-defined and obvious for users needing power generation facilities.

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