Get Tmr Reference Price

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it returns the published AESO value 'without independent recomputation,' which tells the agent that the tool is authoritative and passthrough rather than calculated.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, scope, and a key behavioral trait without wasted words. It earns its place and avoids redundancy with the title and schema.

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 description, combined with a rich output schema, complete parameter schema coverage, and strong annotations, gives an agent everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. The monthly and effective-date context is clear, and the absence of return-value detail is acceptable because an output schema exists.

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 documents the request object and its date-filter purpose. The tool description adds the 'by effective date' framing but does not elaborate on limit/offset or date formats; with full schema coverage, the 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 a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('official AESO Transmission Must-Run reference price'), and the key scoping dimension ('by effective date'). It is distinct from all siblings, which target different market data, and it clarifies that the value is the published official value rather than a recomputed estimate.

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 the tool is for retrieving the official TMR reference price, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. The monthly report context in the schema provides some usage signal, but there is no direct when-to-use guidance.

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