Get Operating Reserve Activations

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

The annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful semantics like 'inclusive market-date range' and 'hourly', but it does not go into potential pagination behavior or data availability, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for this tool.

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 output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety/idempotence, while the description provides the important inclusive-market-date-range semantics. It does not explain how to choose this tool over siblings or describe optional filters, but those are discoverable from the schema, so the definition is mostly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that the date range is inclusive and market-date based, but says nothing about reserve_types, limit, or offset. This is only partial compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Returns'), the resource ('standby operating-reserve activation volume' and 'volume-weighted activation price'), granularity ('hourly'), and the date-range scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_operating_reserve_prices and get_operating_reserve_forecast by focusing on activations rather than prices or forecasts.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and wording that it is about activations, and no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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