Get Operating Reserve Offer Control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: the 60-day release delay, units (CAD/MWh, MW), and timezone (America/Edmonton). These details go beyond annotations and help the agent interpret results correctly.

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 with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential data conventions. Every clause adds value: pagination, delay, units, and timezone. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fills the remaining gaps: what data is returned (a single date), how it is delivered (paginated blocks), and important conventions (delay, units, timezone). An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret results without missing information.

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%, and the request object is described as 'Request one AESO report date with bounded output pagination.' The description does not add extra syntax or format details about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description states the exact verb ('Returns'), the resource ('AESO Operating Reserve Offer Control report'), and the scope ('one historical ... date as paginated blocks'). This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_reserves or get_market_snapshot without needing to name them.

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 contextual clues (historical data, 60-day delay, paginated blocks) that imply when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent could infer usage from the resource name, but there is no direct guidance on alternative selection.

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