Get Generation Capacity

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: hourly granularity, a 31-day bound on the inclusive date range, values in MW, pagination, and the specific inclusion of operating and mothball outages by fuel class. These details inform the agent about output shape and constraints. Since annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description enriches rather than repeats, with no contradiction.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns hourly AIES maximum and available generation capability') followed by key qualifiers (outages, fuel class, date bound, units, pagination). There is no redundancy or fluff; every clause contributes essential information.

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 that an output schema exists (per signal) and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It specifies the data granularity, units, date-range limitation, pagination, and the specific content (capacity and outages). No critical detail needed for invocation 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% (the request object's description covers the parameters), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical constraint that the date range is bounded to 31 days and clarifies that it is inclusive—details not explicitly stated in the schema. This compensates for the schema's brevity and provides additional semantic value for parameter interpretation.

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 a detailed resource: 'hourly AIES maximum and available generation capability plus operating and mothball outages by fuel class.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like get_generation (which likely returns actual generation) and get_outages (general outages). The inclusion of 'by fuel class' and specific outage types makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear contextual guidance: it is for hourly capacity data, with a date range bounded to 31 days, and includes outage information. It implicitly signals when to use it (when required output is capacity and outages) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough to guide selection without explicit exclusions.

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