Get interconnection queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool searches and filters but does not mention response format, pagination, default limits, or any side effects. There is no annotation to confirm it is a safe read operation, making the behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, then efficiently lists the filterable fields. The parenthetical clarification 'projects waiting to connect to the grid' is concise and adds useful context without waste.

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 the tool has six optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the domain and filter options well. However, it does not mention what fields are returned or how results are structured, which is a notable gap in the absence of an output schema and annotations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds modest value by grouping the key filter fields (iso, fuel_type, status, state, min_mw), but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('generator interconnection queue projects') across US ISOs/RTOs. It also clarifies the domain with 'projects waiting to connect to the grid,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_load or get_fuel_mix.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need interconnection queue data—and lists applicable filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, so the guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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