Get Secondary Offer Price Limit

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that a null limit means the cap is not in effect, and clarifies that the report is the 'current' one. The annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, so the additional null-semantics explanation is valuable and not redundant.

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 no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Returns the current...') and then explains the key semantic (null meaning). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple, has an output schema (so return values need not be described), and the description covers the essential behavior and edge case (null limit). 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the 'request' parameter and its 'current_only' property are documented in the schema). The description does not add further meaning to the parameters; it only restates the report contents. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the 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') and a specific resource ('AESO Secondary Offer Price Limit public report'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the exact data it provides. It is not a tautology and instantly tells an agent what this tool does.

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 implies when to use it (when you need the secondary offer price limit) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the tool name is highly specific, the usage is fairly obvious, but there is no explicit routing guidance compared to siblings.

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