get_storage_operations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a return value (JSON string) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. As a read operation, it is implicitly safe, but explicit transparency is lacking.

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 concise, well-structured with sections for intro, args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one parameter. The description explains the return type and purpose. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately complements it. Minor lack of detail on efficiency metrics is acceptable.

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 has one parameter (date) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying the required format (YYYY-MM-DD) and providing a concrete example. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 retrieves pumped storage operations for a day, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle generation mix, prices, demand, etc. It explains the concepts of pumping and turbining, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions the tool's use for identifying arbitrage opportunities and storage efficiency. While it does not directly contrast with siblings, the examples and context provide sufficient guidance for when 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.