Get Energy Merit Order

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the 60-day publication delay, the units (CAD/MWh, MW), and the timezone (America/Edmonton), which materially affect interpretating results. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three short sentences, each adding necessary information: the primary purpose, the data recency constraint, and the unit/timezone context. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover side effects, the description supplies the remaining critical contextual facts: history-only scope, 60-day delay, units, timezone, and paginated offer-block format. An agent has enough to select and use the tool correctly without additional description.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents report_date, limit, and offset with defaults and bounds. The description adds only general context about report units and pagination, which does not need to replace the schema's parameter documentation. 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 clearly states the tool returns one historical AESO Energy Merit Order report date as paginated offer blocks, which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_marginal_prices or get_pool_prices, which serve different market data purposes.

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 gives clear context: it is for historical merit order data, with a 60-day release delay, so agents can infer it is not for real-time queries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the historical qualifer and report type provide sufficient routing guidance.

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