get_pjm_wh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, idempotency, rate limits, auth requirements, data freshness, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a 'get' operation that should be safe.

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 concise sentences: first on purpose, second on usage. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and each sentence serves a clear function.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what is returned (prices and load). Combined with fully described parameters, it is adequate for simple data retrieval. However, it lacks details on response structure or pagination if any.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context about the returned data (prices and load) but does not elaborate further on parameter format or usage beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves PJM Western Hub DA/RT LMP prices and load data, with specific location and data types. It distinguishes well from sibling tools that handle constraints, flows, generation, etc.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('PJM Western Hub prices, PJM WH, Eastern power prices, or PJM load'), but does not mention when not to use or reference sibling alternatives directly. However, the given contexts are clear for an agent.

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