eia_electricity_generator_capacity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is retrieved but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key data, the second cites sources. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence about sources adds limited value for tool selection, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral constraints, or how parameters interact. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the tool returns data on 'capacity, technology type, and status', which loosely maps to some parameters like 'technology' and 'status', but doesn't provide additional context on parameter usage, dependencies, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get inventory of operable generators in the U.S. including capacity, technology type, and status.' It specifies the verb ('Get inventory'), resource ('operable generators in the U.S.'), and key data fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eia_electricity_facility_fuel' or 'eia_electricity_operational_data', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions data sources ('Forms EIA-860, EIA-860M'), but this doesn't help an agent choose between this tool and siblings like 'eia_electricity_state_profiles' or 'eia_electricity_operational_data'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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