energy_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must be transparent. It clarifies this is a live-data read operation from AEMO and lists the data fields returned. However, it doesn't mention potential latency, whether data is real-time or delayed, or any rate limits. It also leaves the behavior of the optional 'region' parameter to the schema, which is acceptable. Overall, adequate but with gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value: what it returns, when to use it, and data source. No unnecessary words.

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 simple snapshot tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, and data source. It lists the returned fields. It lacks explicit handling of the 'omit for all regions' behavior, but the schema covers that. The gap is minimal, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 fully documents the single parameter (region), including enums, examples, and a description. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing examples in the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('current AU NEM snapshot for a region'), and explicit scope (spot price, demand, renewable share, generation mix). It also provides example questions that make the purpose unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like nem_dispatch_5min, the focus on a 'current snapshot' is sufficiently distinct.

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 directly states when to use it: 'Use this when an agent is asked...' with two concrete example questions. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clear usage context earns a 4.

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