Summarize Market History

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 400-bucket cap and the half-open [start, end) interval semantics. A minor gap is that the failure mode when the cap is exceeded (error vs. truncation) is not stated.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core function (verb, resource, granularities, interval), and the second delivers usage guidance plus the critical cap. Every clause earns its place.

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 (return values needn't be explained), annotations cover safety, and schema covers 100% of parameters, the description is nearly complete. The main gaps are the unspecified cap-violation behavior and the lack of any mention of the similar sibling get_price_statistics, which an agent could confuse with this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that bucket granularity maps to Pool Price statistics, identifying 'load' as Alberta Internal Load (a detail absent from the schema's 'load aggregation' phrasing), and giving the 400-bucket constraint that bounds valid start/end spans. This modest but real added value warrants a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resources: compact hourly/daily/weekly/monthly Pool Price statistics plus optional Alberta Internal Load statistics, with explicit [start, end) interval semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from raw-series siblings like get_pool_prices and get_load by framing it as the compact-statistics counterpart.

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?

'Use this before requesting raw series for long periods' states a clear when-to-use context, and the 400-bucket cap implies the boundary condition where raw series become necessary. However, it never names the alternative tools explicitly (e.g., get_pool_prices, get_load, or the similar get_price_statistics), so the when-not guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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