Get Supply Adequacy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the source ('AESO'), granularity ('hourly'), and categorical nature of the data, but it does not describe operational behavior such as date range restrictions or pagination.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's output precisely, and the second disambiguates it from a sibling. No filler or redundancy.

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 the rich annotations, output schema, and clear sibling distinction, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what this read-only tool returns and how it differs from related tools. The current-seven-day scope is covered in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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%, so the schema already carries descriptive weight. The request parameter description ('Optional filter for the current seven-day adequacy publication') adds useful context about scope, but individual sub-parameters like start, end, limit, and offset have no description beyond their schema constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('official AESO hourly Supply Adequacy and Market Supply Cushion status bands'). It also explicitly separates this tool from the derived assess_supply_tightness screening label, which distinguishes it from a key sibling.

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 clear context by identifying the output as official published categorical metrics and contrasting them with the derived assess_supply_tightness label. It does not explicitly say 'use this when...' or 'use assess_supply_tightness instead for...', but the distinction offers practical routing guidance.

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