Get Dispatch Down Service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds complementary context: results are 'bounded official AESO publications', and DDS is conceptually distinct from related market data. This helps an agent interpret the data source and scope, though pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core return behavior, then adds a single clarifying distinction. It avoids repeating information already present in annotations or the schema.

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 schema fully documents the required request object, start/end semantics, timezone handling, and optional limit/offset. Annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile, and an output schema exists. The only minor ambiguity is the word 'bounded', but the limit/offset parameters and schema constraints resolve it sufficiently.

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% at the request parameter level, with nested start/end descriptions including timezone interpretation and limit/offset constraints/defaults. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Returns') and names a precise resource ('AESO Dispatch Down Service availability publications'). It also explicitly distinguishes DDS from energy-market dispatch and metered generation, which helps the agent differentiate it from siblings like get_generation or get_metered_volumes without opening 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?

The description implies this tool is for Dispatch Down Service availability data and warns against confusing it with energy-market dispatch or metered generation. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name an alternative tool to prefer in other cases; the usage context is suggestive rather than prescriptive.

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