Get load forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the unit (MW) and timeframe (near-term), but does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. This is adequate but not rich; the description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the exclusion in the second. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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, read-only forecast tool with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema), but it does clarify the main source of confusion with the sibling spread forecast. Minor gap: no mention of ISO coverage or default behavior beyond what schema implies.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics; it only gives general context about MW and near-term. The schema already covers each parameter, so no significant penalty.

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 states the tool returns a near-term ISO load forecast in MW, using a specific noun phrase that clearly identifies the resource. It also explicitly distinguishes it from the ERCOT RT−DA price-spread forecast, which differentiates it from a key sibling tool.

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 tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: 'Not the ERCOT RT−DA price-spread forecast — use get_spread_forecast for that.' This provides an explicit alternative and exclusion, which is the highest level of guidance.

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