get_constraint_breaches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key prerequisite ('Requires API key') and hints at output content (duration and energy lost), but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, data latency, or other behavioral traits. The statement is helpful but not rich enough to score higher.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the use case and a requirement. Every sentence contributes value: what it is, what it shows, why it matters, and what is needed to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately communicates the data returned (history, duration, energy lost), the use case for BESS siting, and the API key requirement. It could be more complete by mentioning parameter defaults or response shape, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the essential context.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool as 'UKPN grid constraint breach history' and specifies it 'Shows where and when network constraints triggered DER curtailment, with duration and energy lost.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope and is well differentiated from siblings like get_ukpn_grid_overview or get_flexibility_market by focusing on constraint breaches and curtailment events.

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 usage context via 'Direct signal for BESS siting — frequent breaches indicate flex revenue opportunity.' This tells the agent when the tool is useful, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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