NRC — Nuclear Reactor Outages & Reduced Power

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: public-domain NRC data, no auth, unlimited free access, output includes power percentage and status, and results are sorted lowest-power first. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful operational detail.

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 yet information-dense: purpose is front-loaded, parameter behavior is illustrated with examples, output shape and ordering are stated, use cases are given, and access/authorization constraints are included. No sentence is filler or redundant with the schema.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary decision factors: what the threshold means, the default behavior, output fields, ordering, data source, and auth model. An agent can correctly invoke and interpret this tool with minimal ambiguity.

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% and the schema already describes max_power as an inclusive 0–100 threshold with default 99. The description adds concrete mental models — max_power=0 means 'only fully-shutdown reactors' and max_power=50 means 'half-power or less' — which helps an agent choose values confidently beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Identify US nuclear reactors currently operating below a specified power threshold.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like nrc.reactor.current_status and nrc.reactor.history by focusing on power-level thresholds and outage status.

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 useful context for when to call it — 'energy grid impact assessment, nuclear capacity risk monitoring, and real-time tracking' — and explains default and example thresholds. However, it does not explicitly name alternative siblings or state when NOT to use this tool versus current_status or history, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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