Get Monthly Cumulative Net Revenue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the report's contents (cumulative costs, trigger flag) and the timestamp convention (America/Edmonton hour-ending). This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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 waste. The first sentence names the tool's primary output, the second elaborates on contents and timezone. Information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 tool has only one parameter (with full schema coverage) and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return formats. It covers the report's purpose, key contents, and timestamp convention, which is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it. Nothing essential 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 the single `request` parameter and its `current_only` property are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for well-covered parameters without adding value.

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 begins with a specific verb "Returns" and names the exact resource: "AESO Monthly Cumulative Settlement Interval Net Revenue (MCSINR) public report". It lists concrete contents (cumulative CAD vs 1/6 annualized unavoidable costs, trigger status) that leave no ambiguity. None of the sibling tools cover cumulative net revenue, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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 defines the tool's purpose (returning the current MCSINR report) and includes that only the current publication is supported via the `current_only` parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the report's uniqueness in the sibling list makes the usage context clear without explicit exclusions.

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