get_interconnection_queue

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms read-only snapshot behavior. Description adds valuable context: sources, metrics returned, and that it is a snapshot. No contradictions. For a read-only tool, this is sufficient transparency beyond the annotation.

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 a single efficient paragraph. It front-loads the main deliverable ('ISO interconnection queue snapshot'), then adds specific metrics and usage. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 a simple 1-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully informs the agent: what data it returns, metrics, sources, parameter usage, and use cases. No gaps remain.

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 only parameter 'iso' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining to pass an ISO name like 'ERCOT' and lists all 7 valid options (ERCOT, PJM, MISO, SPP, CAISO, NYISO, ISO-NE). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 it provides an ISO interconnection queue snapshot with specific metrics (MW queued, data-center share, top subregions, TTP months). It names sources and lists 7 ISOs. The verb 'get' plus resource 'interconnection_queue' is specific. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on queue data, not general grid data or site analysis.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pass iso=ERCOT (or any of 7) to drill down to a single ISO' and states use cases: 'Use for site-selection...and competitive intel'. However, does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, though context from siblings implies alternatives.

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