nem_dispatch_5min

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the data source ('Sources AEMO live dispatch'), scope ('for a region (or all regions)'), and cadence (5-minute intervals). However, it does not mention potential latency, default result limits, or any operational caveats beyond what the schema already states, leaving a minor 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then use cases, then differentiation. Every sentence contributes value—no fluff or repetition. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description lists key data fields (spot price, demand, generation by fuel type) which gives a sense of return content. It also provides use-case context and sibling comparison. It doesn't describe the exact response format (e.g., time series rows), but for a 2-param data retrieval tool, the context is largely complete.

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% (both 'limit' and 'region' are well-described in the input schema). The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond confirming region can be omitted for all regions, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 'Returns the AEMO 5-minute NEM dispatch series' and specifies the data types included (spot price, scheduled demand, dispatched generation by fuel/technology). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'energy_snapshot' by noting its higher cadence, making it easy to identify the correct tool.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'what's been happening in the NEM over the last hour?' and 'show me the dispatch curve in QLD today'. It also names the alternative tool 'energy_snapshot' and explains the difference, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance.

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