get_auction_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It focuses on return content rather than behavior, omitting details such as data history, availability, rate limits, or whether results are limited to published auctions. There is no mention of access constraints or safety profile.

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 conveys the source, data granularity, and key fields without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description is the primary source for return values. It communicates the main fields (allocated MW, price, offered capacity) and source adequately. However, it could be more explicit about the result structure (e.g., grouped by corridor) or any limitations, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 already provides full descriptions for both date (format) and corridor (examples and available list). The description's mention of 'per corridor' and price units adds minimal context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 clearly identifies the specific resource: cross-border capacity auction results from JAO. It lists the key data fields (allocated MW, price in EUR/MW, offered capacity) and the per-corridor scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transmission_lines or get_nordpool_prices.

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: use this tool to obtain cross-border capacity auction results from JAO, with details per corridor. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool covers this exact data, so the usage context is sufficient.

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