get_gb_grid_demand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides both actual and forecast demand, and mentions frequency deviations indirectly via the schema. However, it does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, whether any authentication is needed, or return format details beyond units. This is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key data types and source. Every word contributes value, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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's simplicity, the description covers the essential information: data type, units, and source. The schema explains the parameter choices. Without an output schema, the description does not detail response structure, but the provided units and data types give sufficient context for the agent to understand what will be returned.

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%, and the schema provides detailed descriptions for the 'action' parameter including the distinction between 'demand' and 'frequency' and what each returns. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 specifies the resource (GB demand and grid frequency), includes units (MW, Hz), and identifies the source (National Grid ESO). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_eu_frequency by explicitly scoping to Great Britain, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the data description ('GB demand', 'grid frequency') but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_elexon_bmrs or get_smard_data. No alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer suitability from domain knowledge.

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