Analyze Generation Mix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds modest context (aggregation of CSD data into time-window metrics) but does not disclose edge behavior such as how 'peak MW' is computed over the interval or how hourly records are aggregated. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One 19-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and every word carrying information. No filler, no redundancy, and the output metrics are enumerated compactly.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the core call contract is largely complete. The notable gaps are the undocumented fuel_types value domain/default behavior and the lack of sibling differentiation, both of which matter given the crowded tool family.

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 nested start/end parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema (inclusive/exclusive, timezone behavior), but the top-level request object and fuel_types have no schema descriptions. The description's 'by fuel type' clarifies that fuel_types is the grouping/filtering dimension, yet valid fuel type values and the default when fuel_types is omitted remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb ('aggregates'), a precise resource ('official hourly individual-asset CSD generation'), and the exact derived output metrics (energy, share, average MW, peak MW by fuel type). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_generation (raw data) and analyze_supply_stack without opening their schemas.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With over 50 siblings including get_generation, get_historical_generation, and analyze_supply_stack, the agent must infer selection solely from the name and output metrics; there are no explicit selection conditions, exclusions, or alternative references.

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