Get Interchange

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by explaining the sign convention ('Positive/negative path signs follow AESO Current Supply Demand conventions') and notes that net interchange is included. This goes beyond the annotations but does not cover every behavioral aspect (e.g., data freshness, but that is likely in the output schema).

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a key detail (sign convention). Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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 the simple nature of the tool (no parameters), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned, the unit, and the sign convention, which covers the essential contextual information for a current-data retrieval tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools. The description's mention of 'by path' could indirectly reference the structure of the data but not parameters.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns current Alberta interchange flows by path in MW, including net interchange.' This includes a specific verb (returns), a resource (interchange flows), a unit (MW), and a specific scope (Alberta, by path). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_load or get_generation by focusing on interchange and mentioning net interchange.

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 the tool is for retrieving current interchange flow data, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., 'for historical data use X'). Thus, it has clear context but lacks explicit alternative guidance, matching a 4.

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