Get Unit Commitments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the inclusive date range, 31-day limit, pagination behavior, and the America/Edmonton timezone for timestamps. This helps an agent understand what to expect without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, each providing necessary information: the first states the resource and core behavior, the second adds key constraints and timestamp details. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 presence of a complete output schema and well-documented nested input schema, the description covers all essential operational details: what the tool returns, date-range handling, pagination bounds, and timestamp timezone. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the nested 'request' object already describes an inclusive date range with bounded pagination. The description adds further semantic value by specifying the 31-day bound, pagination, and timezone context, which clarifies the intended use of start_date, end_date, limit, and offset beyond their basic schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('AESO generating-unit commitment directives'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It further distinguishes this tool from the large sibling list by focusing on commitment directives, a unique resource not covered by similarly named siblings.

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 intended use: request commitment directives within an inclusive date range, with pagination and a 31-day bound. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as when to use get_uc_settlement_summary instead.

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