get_nged_connection_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explains the two-step process: resolving the site to a GSP and returning records where covered. It also clarifies the interpretation of results ('Not headroom, a connection offer, or a firm capacity right'). It omits details like pagination, error cases, and response format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 exactly two sentences. The first front-loads the purpose and process, the second provides a clear disclaimer. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and caveats well. It conveys what the tool does and what it does not guarantee, but lacks explicit response structure or edge-case behavior (e.g., when GSP is not covered). Overall, it is sufficient for selection but not fully complete for invocation.

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% for the 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it contextualizes lat/lon/country as a 'GB site' but does not explain parameters further or add syntax/format details.

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 states the tool's function: it resolves a GB site to its NESO GSP and returns NGED's per-GSP connection queue and TD-limit records. It also distinguishes itself from related concepts by explicitly stating 'Not headroom, a connection offer, or a firm capacity right,' which helps differentiate 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 conveys when to use this tool by emphasizing 'NGED-only' and stating what it is not (headroom, connection offer, firm capacity right). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_distribution_headroom or get_grid_connection_queue, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives.

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