Get Unit Commitments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: inclusive range, 31-day bound, pagination, and timezone of timestamps. These go beyond annotations and help the agent understand response veracity and constraints. No mention of rate limits or error conditions, but annotations 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function first, then constraints and content. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause adds information (inclusive range, 31-day bound, pagination, timestamps, timezone). It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema exists (per context signal) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description need not explain return values or side effects. It adequately specifies the required input parameters and their constraints. The only minor omission is not stating that end_date must be >= start_date, but that is implicit in an inclusive date range. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 has high coverage (100% per context signal) but the individual fields (start_date, end_date, limit, offset) lack explicit descriptions. The tool description compensates by clarifying the meaning of the date range ('inclusive', bounded to 31 days) and mentions pagination, which implies the role of limit/offset. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic types, so a 4 is justified.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource 'AESO generating-unit commitment directives', and adds scope (inclusive date range, paginated, 31-day bound) and content (timestamps in America/Edmonton). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target outages, prices, and load, all of which are clearly different data types.

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 clear contextual constraints (inclusive date range, 31-day maximum, pagination) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives. However, given the uniqueness of the resource (commitment directives) among siblings, the usage context is clear without exclusions. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or naming of alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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