Get Reserves

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the data is 'current' and that certain volumes are included 'when published,' indicating potential unavailability. This enriches the behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (returns indicators in MW) and then enumerates specific components. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. It names the resource, units, and specific data types returned, while the output schema handles return structure. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details since there are none to explain.

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'), a clear resource ('current AESO operating reserve indicators'), units (MW), and enumerates specific metrics (contingency reserve required/dispatched, fast frequency response volumes). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_operating_reserve_offer_control, which deals with offers rather than current indicators.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are listed in context, the description does not reference them or provide any selection criteria. The only usage hint is 'when published,' which is about data availability rather than tool choice.

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