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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description adds non-redundant behavioral detail: UTC default, start-inclusive/end-exclusive semantics, and tz='local' resolving to the FROM-zone timezone. This helps an agent avoid timezone misinterpretation.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver all essential semantics in a scannable format. There is no filler, repetition of schema defaults, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers timezone and interval semantics, which are the trickiest parts, and output/safety concerns are covered by schema and annotations. However, the aggregation parameter remains opaque, and there is no usage guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving the definition incomplete for a six-parameter API.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains start, end, and tz well, and from_zone/to_zone are contextually clear, but aggregation is completely undocumented with no allowed values or examples.

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 a specific verb and resource: cross-border physical flow in MW between two adjacent zones. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_generation or get_load.

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 implied by the resource definition, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or what it is not for. No exclusionary or comparative guidance is provided.

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