Get Intertie Capability

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: a 100-day date range limit and pagination, which are not covered by annotations. It also discloses optional versioning, providing additional context beyond the structured metadata without 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core output, the second adds critical constraints. The most important info (what data is returned) is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return formats. It covers key limitations (date range, pagination) and options (hour-ending, versions) sufficiently for a nested-parameter tool. Minor gap: 'versioned reports' is vague, but not critical for correct 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?

The schema only has a top-level 'request' object with a generic description, leaving the inner fields (e.g., start_hour_ending, include_versions) undocumented. The tool description compensates by explaining that the tool supports hour-ending bounds and versioned reports, and mentions pagination via limit/offset. Although it doesn't map each field explicitly, it gives enough semantic grounding for an agent to infer parameter roles.

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 verb ('Returns') and specifies the exact data types (ATC, TTC, reliability margins, gross offers) and scope (AESO interties and flowgates). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pool_prices or get_load by naming the resource type, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 mentions features (hour-ending bounds, versioned reports) and constraints (date limit, pagination) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for intertie capability data, but lacks direct exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like get_intertie_outages.

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