caiso_signal

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds minor context by listing the signal types, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as update frequency, data latency, or response format. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence followed by a compact bullet list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with a rich schema and readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what data the tool returns. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state whether the response is a current snapshot or a time series, but this is not critical for tool selection.

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 schema covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), but the description adds extra nuance beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'rates' are time-varying, 'GHG' refers to carbon intensity, and 'FlexAlert' signals are active alerts with grid stress context. This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('California ISO real-time grid signals'), and enumerates three distinct signal types (rates, GHG, FlexAlert). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ercot_grid_conditions or isone_load, which target other grid operators.

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 context that this tool is for California ISO grid signals, and the enumerated signal types guide which parameter to use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives for other grid regions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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