Analyze Asset Dispatch

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some context by specifying the source ('official hourly CSD dispatch') and the aggregation focus, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior, data-availability assumptions, or how the time interval is handled beyond what the schema already notes.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope, then lists the metrics. Every phrase contributes; there is no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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 description plus annotations and output schema give a fairly complete picture for a straightforward summarization tool. However, the lack of asset-ID provenance or any usage routing leaves an agent to infer how to populate the request correctly, especially given the large sibling set.

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 0% at the top level, and the description does not compensate: it only says 'selected assets', which maps loosely to asset_ids, and 'hourly' implies a time window, but it does not explain the request object, the format or source of asset IDs, or the interval semantics. The nested start/end descriptions do some work, but the top-level request parameter is undocumented.

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 specific verb, 'Summarizes', ties it to a concrete resource ('official hourly CSD dispatch'), and enumerates the derived metrics (energy, generation, capacity factor, ramp extremes). This distinguishes it from raw-data siblings like get_generation and get_metered_volumes by signaling an aggregated analysis over dispatch data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as analyze_ramps, get_generation, or compare_csd_to_metered. The description implies a use case but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or context where an alternative would be better.

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