Get Generation Capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description goes further by adding the inclusive 31-day date bound, MW units, hourly granularity, fuel-class breakdown, and paginated output, all of which are meaningful operational details beyond the 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 no redundant phrasing. The core return value is stated first, followed by key operational constraints (date bound, units, pagination). Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description supplies the necessary operational context: data resolution (hourly), scope (AIES), content (capacity and outages by fuel class), date restriction (31 days), units (MW), and pagination. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be 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?

The schema description already covers 100% of parameters, including the request object description of an inclusive report-date range with bounded pagination. The description adds value by explicitly stating the 31-day maximum inclusive range and confirming that output is paginated, which directly relates to start_date, end_date, limit, and offset semantics.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('hourly AIES maximum and available generation capability plus operating and mothball outages by fuel class'), and clarifies units and pagination. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_generation or get_outages because it focuses on capacity capability rather than actual generation or general outages.

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 a clear context of what data is returned (capacity and outage status by fuel class) and constraints (31-day limit, MW, paginated), so an agent can infer when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_generation, get_outages, or get_historical_generation, nor does it mention exclusions.

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