Interconnection Queue

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond that by revealing the ERCOT-specific large-load data center queue behavior, that other ISOs' data_center_gw will be null, the specific headline figure (225 GW in process), and the provenance in top_subregions. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations cannot capture, with no contradiction.

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 longer than average, but every sentence contributes: data fields, the ERCOT exception, sources, usage, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. The density is high, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 that an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate return fields, but it does describe the key semantic distinctions (per-ISO totals, ERCOT's extra queue, nulls for other ISOs, provenance). It also names the source data feeds and the exact use cases. No obvious gaps remain for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool.

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 already fully documents the iso parameter with all seven ISO names and the default behavior (omit for all-ISO snapshot), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only reinforces this with 'Pass iso=ERCOT (or any of 7) to drill down,' which adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'ISO interconnection queue snapshot' and specifies the exact output fields (queued_load_total_gw, queued_load_data_center_gw). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by naming get_grid_intelligence and grid_transition_radar as alternatives, making the tool's unique scope 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?

Explicit use-case guidance is provided: 'Use for queue-depth site-selection and AI/data-center-load saturation intel' and 'Do NOT use for a single-site time-to-power read (use get_grid_intelligence) or forward-looking emergence (use grid_transition_radar).' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate and which sibling to call instead, which is the gold standard for usage guidelines.

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