GreenLight - Plug-in Solar Law Registry

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the read-only annotation: pending records are unconfirmed and should be treated as such, state absence returns tracked:false and is not a statement about the law, and certification claims are only published after human confirmation. The 'never legal advice' caveat also clarifies appropriate usage.

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 long but every clause carries essential information: what is returned, what pending status means, what absence means, and the legal-advice limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then layers caveats logically.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contents, edge-case behavior, verification-semantics, and human confirmation caveat. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret results safely.

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 schema already documentes the state parameter completely (two-letter US state code, case-insensitive). The description adds behavioral context about registry absence but no new syntactic meaning for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the verb and resource: it fetches a single state's full GreenLight registry record. It enumerates the specific fields returned, making its purpose concrete and distinct from sibling solar_states which likely lists states. The phrase 'one state's' bounds the scope and prevents overlap with the sibling.

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 makes clear this is the per-state detail lookup tool and explains what happens for absent states. It does not explicitly mention solar_states as the alternative for enumerating states, but the scope is strong enough that an agent would correctly select it for single-state queries.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses the verification process, the pending/unconfirmed semantics, and the non-legal-advice limitation. It also clarifies that absence from the registry is not evidence about a state's law, a non-obvious behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action and output fields, then adds only high-value caveats in the following sentences. No sentence is wasted; each one carries interpretive or scope information the agent needs.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the returned fields, explains pending status, defines what an absence means, and warns against legal reliance. An agent can invoke it correctly with no further context.

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 input schema is empty and parameter count is zero, so there are no parameters to disambiguate. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description cannot add parameter meaning, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'List every state in the GreenLight plug-in (balcony) solar registry,' and enumerates the exact data returned. The all-states scope separates it from the sibling solar_law, which is naturally the point lookup.

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 intended use is clear from the first sentence: call this when you need the complete registry of states. It also provides important interpretation guidance ('A state not listed is simply not in the registry; that says nothing about its law'), but it does not explicitly name solar_law as the alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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