Get Outages

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

Annotations already carry readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the timezone (America/Edmonton) and interval semantics (exclusive end), plus the return structure (Total Outage MW plus per-fuel components). It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior, but with strong annotation coverage and an output schema, this is adequate.

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, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the timezone note and the alternative routing. Every sentence adds value and the structure is tight.

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?

With an output schema provided, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the interval, timezone, and tool differentiation. For a nested-request tool with robust annotations and schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both start and end have detailed descriptions including format and timezone interpretation. The description repeats the interval semantics but adds no new parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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?

Description states the exact resource (AESO generator outage capacity), granularity (hourly), scope (by technology/fuel), interval semantics ([start, end) with exclusive end), and explicitly contrasts with transmission outages by naming sibling tools. This clearly distinguishes it from get_approved_transmission_outages and get_long_range_transmission_outages without opening their 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?

Explicitly names when not to use this tool ('For transmission planned outages') and provides two alternative tools. The purpose statement itself implies the use case (generator outage data), and the exclusion is clear. This gives an agent enough routing guidance.

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