Live Grid Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the source (EIA hourly RTO), the raw nature of the telemetry, and the per-ISO scoping. It does not describe pagination or exact return shape, but the output schema fills that 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, followed by usage and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy. It is compact yet information-dense.

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 has a clear output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the geographic scope (US ISOs), data granularity (raw real-time telemetry, hourly RTO), and explicitly addresses alternatives and exclusion cases, making it complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by providing an explicit usage example ('Pass iso=PJM'), clarifying that only one ISO is fetched at a time, and offering example metric values (fuel_mix, demand, demand_curve) that map to the metric parameter. This goes beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 real-time electricity grid data for the 7 US ISOs via EIA hourly RTO, listing specific data types (fuel mix, demand, 24h demand curve). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_grid_intelligence, get_energy_prices, and get_grid_scoreboard as alternatives for other use cases.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (for US ISO real-time telemetry) and strong when-not-to-use exclusions with named alternatives: not for power-availability/time-to-power/interconnection-queue (use get_grid_intelligence), not for retail/gas pricing (use get_energy_prices), and not for non-US grids (use get_grid_scoreboard).

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