Get Forecast

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the half-open [start, end) interval semantics and the conditional "where the requested source horizon exists", which alerts the agent that data availability is not guaranteed. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the resource, scope, interval semantics, series options, and a data-availability caveat. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough orienting context for an agent to decide whether this tool fits the request. It covers what data is returned, for which series, over what interval, and notes the horizon-existence condition; return-value details are covered by the output schema.

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 documents the request object, start/end timezone interpretation, horizon requirements, series enum, and pagination fields. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating the series and interval, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the resource as "typed official AESO actual and forecast observations" over a defined interval. It further specifies the supported series (AIL, Pool Price, wind, solar, combined wind/solar), making it easy to distinguish from forecast-related siblings like get_operating_reserve_forecast or get_load_outage_forecast.

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 its use for retrieving official AESO forecast/actual observations for the listed series, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the guidance relies on inference from the tool name and scope.

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