Get Intertie Outages

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those: inclusive date range, pagination, and inclusion of affected paths and event boundaries in a specific timezone. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by essential output characteristics. Every clause serves a purpose, and the definition is appropriately brief for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core calling context: what is returned, date range semantics, pagination, timezone, and the specific resource domain. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required. Minor omissions like default ordering or error behavior are acceptable given the provided annotations and schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the request object description already states 'inclusive AESO report-date range' and 'bounded output pagination'. The tool description repeats this ('inclusive date range', 'output is paginated') without adding new meaning for start_date, end_date, limit, or offset. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('outages affecting AESO interties or flowgates'), and scoping ('inclusive date range'). It immediately differentiates from generic outage tools like get_outages by naming the intertie/flowgate domain, making the agent's selection 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_outages, get_approved_transmission_outages, or get_long_range_transmission_outages. It does not state exclusions or preferred conditions, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name and scope.

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