Get Historical Generation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the '[start, end)' half-open interval, the timezone-naive interpretation as America/Edmonton market time, the optional refresh behavior, and the caveat that the archive is not settlement-metered data. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences: the first packs the core semantics (resource, interval, resolution, filters, pagination), and the second adds a critical caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the key constraints are 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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational semantics: interval bounds, resolution choice, filtering, pagination, and the non-settlement caveat. Minor gaps like pagination details and the refresh mechanism's behavior are not fully explained, but the schema and output schema already carry much of that load.

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 schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description adds semantic value by explaining that filters are bounded ('Bounded asset/fuel filters'), that the interval is half-open, and that the data is operational CSD not settlement-metered. This is enough to elevate above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('AESO CSD individual-asset generation'), a precise interval semantics ('[start, end)'), and two resolution options. It also distinguishes this from settlement-metered data, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_csd_to_metered.

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 use for historical official CSD generation queries and notes that this archive is not settlement-metered, giving a useful exclusion. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like compare_csd_to_metered or summarize_market_history, but the interval and filter scope make the usage context reasonably clear.

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