Get Load

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds essential behavioral context: timestamps in America/Edmonton and a 90-day maximum range, plus the optional forecast field. This supplements the annotation 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 clear sentences: the first states the core function and interval, the second covers forecast and timezone/range. Efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant content.

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 read-only query tool, the description covers essential constraints: interval semantics, timezone, max range, and forecast option. The output is handled by the output schema, so nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (start, end, limit, offset, include_forecast) are documented. The description reinforces the interval [start, end) and forecast option, but does not add meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 specifies 'Returns Alberta Internal Load (AIL) observations in MW' with explicit interval semantics ([start, end)). This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and units, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_load_outage_forecast without needing to read schemas.

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 notes optional forecast inclusion and defines timezone and duration limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for AIL observations but lacks explicit exclusions or conditions for sibling choice.

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