Get Metered Volumes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the 16-day limit for unfiltered requests, pagination requirement, and the mutual exclusivity of filter types. These are not obvious from the schema and aid correct invocation.

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, front-loading the core return value and then adding key constraints. No filler or repetition; every clause carries essential information for correct usage.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the main usage nuances: filtering constraints, time limits, and pagination. It doesn't explain error cases or exact response format, but the output schema exists and annotations handle safety, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 the schema has descriptions, they are generic ('Request metered volumes'), so the description meaningfully clarifies parameter usage: asset_ids and pool_participant_ids are filters that cannot be combined, start/end dates define the range, and limit/offset handle pagination. This adds semantics beyond the schema's type and constraint declarations.

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 tool returns hourly AESO metered energy in MWh by asset, using specific verbs and resource scope. It is distinct from siblings like get_load or get_generation that return different data, and the mention of filtering by asset/participant IDs further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides concrete usage constraints: filtering by up to 20 asset or participant IDs, not simultaneously, a 16-day limit for unfiltered requests, and pagination. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when to prefer this over siblings, leaving the choice to the agent without direct guidance.

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