Get Uc Settlement Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: the data is public, hourly-grained, inclusive of the provided dates, and returns settlement amount plus charged volume. It does not detail pagination or timezone, but the annotations and output schema reduce the burden.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core result, granularity, units, and date-boundary semantics. There is no filler, redundancy, or unclear structure.

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 read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with a nested input schema, full schema coverage, and an output schema, this description is largely complete: it specifies the resource, units, data availability, granularity, and date inclusivity. It could add routing guidance relative to siblings, but the core invocation is fully actionable without 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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by specifying 'market-date' and 'inclusive' range behavior, which the bare schema fields do not convey. Limit and offset details remain in the schema, which 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 and resource: 'Returns the public AESO hourly Unit Commitment settlement amount in CAD and charged volume in MW', bounded to an inclusive market-date range. It clearly communicates the exact metric and units, making the tool easy to distinguish from sibling market-data tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention the closely related get_unit_commitments or other sibling tools. The only contextual clue is the date range, which is already implied by the schema, so selection among the many siblings is left to inference.

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