get_acer_remit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds domain context about forced outages and capacity reductions. It does not mention pagination, default limits, filtering behavior, output format, or any access requirements, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant content. However, the first sentence is more like a title or label than a functional description, which slightly reduces its effectiveness as a standalone explanation.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only minimal context about the data domain. It explains what data is covered but omits information about how results are returned, how to refine queries effectively, or any constraints. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall description underdelivers for a moderately complex energy data source.

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%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of message_type by mentioning 'forced outages' and 'capacity reductions,' but it adds no additional detail about limit, country, or fuel_type beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (ACER REMIT) and the specific data types (UMMs and outage events), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the broad set of sibling energy data tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' but the tool name 'get_acer_remit' provides that context, making the purpose clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_entsog_data or get_smard_data. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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