Get Ffr Net Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the AESO sign convention (imports negative, exports positive) and by drawing a boundary against offered/dispatched data, both essential for correct interpretation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero filler: the first delivers the core purpose, the second delivers the critical sign convention and scope boundary. Content is front-loaded and 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 output schema carries return-value documentation, annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema carries parameters at 100% coverage. The description supplies the one non-obvious interpretive fact (sign convention) and a scope boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, end, limit, and offset all documented including timezone semantics for naive datetimes. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the word 'bounded' loosely echoes the limit/offset mechanism but contributes nothing new. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a well-scoped resource ('bounded official FFR Net Schedule archive'), with qualifiers 'bounded' and 'official' pinning down scope. The explicit clarification ('this is not FFR offered or dispatched') further distinguishes it from adjacent data categories an agent might confuse it with.

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?

No explicit when-to-use conditions and no named sibling alternatives. The negative clause ('not FFR offered or dispatched') gives a partial when-not signal, but it stops short of routing the agent to the correct alternative or stating the situation in which this tool is preferred.

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