Compare Csd To Metered

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the MW-to-interval-MWh conversion, the matched-hour methodology, percentage errors, missing-source counts, and the explicit warning that CSD operational output and metered settlement energy are distinct source concepts.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core comparison and output, followed by a one-sentence conceptual clarification. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 covers inputs, comparison logic, output contents, and source-concept distinction, and an output schema exists for return-value details. It is complete for a read-only comparison tool, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it fully comprehensive.

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 100%, with start and end timezone handling and asset_ids constraints already documented. The description contributes context like 'hourly' and 'by asset', but does not need to add much because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compares hourly operational Historical CSD generation against hourly settlement-metered energy by asset. It also specifies what is returned (matched-hour differences, percentage errors, missing-source counts), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from generic compare tools.

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?

Usage context is implied through the comparison of CSD operational output versus metered settlement energy, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Given many sibling comparison tools like compare_forecast_to_actual and compare_market_periods, explicit alternatives would strengthen this dimension.

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