get_grid_connection_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful context like 'No API key' and that it draws from a public register, while noting the output is an aggregate signal, not a guarantee. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or explicitly state read-only semantics, leaving notable gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core resource, followed by usage and exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview: data source, filterable fields, output shape (projects + aggregated MW), exclusions, and auth requirement. It lacks some details like result limits or update frequency, but the shape and scope are clear enough for most use cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions the searchable fields (connection site, project, host TO, technology, status, agreement type) and explains that results include aggregated MW by site, but it does not add per-parameter meaning 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'GB transmission connection-register signal from NESO's public TEC register' and the action as searching and retrieving matched projects plus aggregated MW. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it is 'not a DNO headroom map or a guaranteed connection offer', which separates it from sibling tools.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance via the exclusions ('not a DNO headroom map or a guaranteed connection offer'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it for DNO headroom or guarantee checks. It lacks explicit named alternatives, but the search fields and intended use case are clear.

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