Compare Forecast To Actual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about timezone handling ('Timestamps are America/Edmonton') and interval inclusivity ([start, end)), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and output metrics. It avoids filler and every phrase contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, the description correctly focuses on the operation's purpose and parameter semantics. It covers the timezone and interval behavior, and given the tool's simple single-parameter input, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage, describing start and end with format and timezone interpretation. The description adds 'in MW' and the interval notation, but these are minor additions; the schema does the heavy lifting, so 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 uses a specific verb 'compares' and names the resource 'Alberta Internal Load forecast versus actual over [start, end) in MW', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_load or compare_market_periods. The scope and units are explicit.

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?

The description clearly frames the tool's use case: comparing forecast vs actual load for a given interval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous, providing clear guidance without marketing or redundant clauses.

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