get_constraint_loading

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns and that high values indicate near limit, but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Adequate but not detailed.

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: first describes the function, second gives usage context and interpretation. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 only 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, usage context, and value interpretation. Could mention output format but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 description need not add parameter details. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions (dates format, constraint name lookup). Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves hourly max and min loading percentages for a specific ERCOT transmission constraint over a date range. It distinguishes from siblings like get_flow_analysis by focusing on 'constraint loading' and transmission utilization.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when asked about constraint loading, line loading, transmission utilization, or how loaded a specific constraint is.' Provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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