Get renewable curtailment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful caveat about coverage strength, implying weaker coverage elsewhere. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or other behavioral quirks. The added coverage note earns a mid-range score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a concise caveat. No wasted words, clear structure, and immediately informative.

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 data retrieval tool with 5 optional parameters but no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It states the data type, unit, and coverage, but leaves out specifics like default time range, return format, or field details. The coverage caveat adds context, yet gaps remain.

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% since every parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema—'by ISO' repeats the iso parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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 identifies the resource: 'Solar and wind curtailment (MWh)' and specifies the scope 'by ISO'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (load, fuel mix, etc.) by naming a unique metric. The verb is implicit in the tool name but the action is unmistakable.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool (for curtailment data by ISO) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The note about strongest coverage for CAISO, ERCOT, SPP implies a preference for those ISOs, but it does not tell the agent when to choose another tool.

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