Get Energy Merit Order

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 60-day release delay, units (CAD/MWh, MW), timezone (America/Edmonton), and the paginated structure. These details help the agent interpret results correctly and set expectations, going beyond what annotations alone 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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by three critical factual details (delay, units, timezone) each earning its place. No redundancy with the schema or annotations. This is an exemplar of concise, information-dense writing.

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?

For a read-only, single-date retrieval tool with an output schema, this description covers the essentials: what it returns, the delay, units, timezone, and pagination. One could argue it should clarify what 'offer blocks' are, but given the domain context and the output schema, this is sufficient. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the request object is described as 'Request one AESO report date with bounded output pagination,' and the nested properties (limit, offset, report_date) have constraints and defaults. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys; it mentions pagination but doesn't elaborate on limit/offset semantics. 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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('AESO Energy Merit Order report date'), and a precise output form ('paginated offer blocks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pool_prices or get_system_marginal_prices, which serve different data needs. The single-date scope is also explicit, so an agent immediately knows what this tool is for.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its 26 siblings. It does state the 60-day release delay, which implies it's for historical data, but nothing explicitly says 'use this when you need X' or names an alternative. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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