Get Intertie Outages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating output is paginated and that affected paths and event boundaries are reported in America/Edmonton timezone. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and scope, then appends output details and pagination. There is no filler or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with one nested parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose, domain, timezone, and pagination behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the many sibling outage-related tools, but the 'interties or flowgates' scope makes the intended use clear.

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 already covers parameter semantics at 100% with the request description 'inclusive AESO report-date range with bounded output pagination.' The tool description repeats the ideas of 'inclusive' and 'paginated' but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('AESO interties or flowgates'), and scope ('inclusive date range'). The description also mentions affected paths and event boundaries, adding precision beyond the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_outages, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly implies its use case: retrieving outages that affect interties/flowgates. However, it offers no direct guidance about when to choose this over alternative outage tools such as get_outages or get_approved_transmission_outages. The inclusive date range and pagination are operational details rather than usage conditions.

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