Get Intertie Capability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's added value lies in disclosing operational constraints: hour-ending bounds, versioned reports, 100-day date range limit, and paginated output. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate response size and filtering behavior, though it does not detail error handling or exact response structure.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data content; the second efficiently covers operational constraints. Every phrase provides information needed for correct invocation, making it an ideal size for an agent-facing tool description.

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 thorough annotations, the description adequately covers the essential operational context: data type, constraints, and pagination. It does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus sibling tools, but the detailed resource scope makes the use case reasonably clear. A small gap remains around differentiating from related intertie tools, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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?

While schema description coverage is high and defaults/min/max exist, the tool description adds meaning by translating 'hour-ending bounds' to the start_hour_ending/end_hour_ending parameters, 'optional versioned reports' to include_versions, and 'paginated' to limit/offset. This clarifies how the nested parameters are intended to be used, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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') and a clear resource ('hourly import/export ATC, TTC, reliability margins, and gross offers for AESO interties and flowgates'). This is far more specific than the tool name and clearly defines the scope of data returned, distinguishing it from likely siblings like get_interchange or get_intertie_outages by its precise data content.

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 when to use the tool through its detailed resource and data output, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions constraints like the 100-day limit and pagination, which affect usage, but does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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