amber_forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations give: no forecast horizon, granularity (e.g., 5-minute vs 30-minute intervals), units, or timezone, all of which materially affect how the result is consumed.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words and front-loaded verb. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so length itself is not the problem.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what a forecast returns, and it does not: no horizon, no interval, no unit (c/kWh). With two undocumented params and no return-value context, the definition is not sufficient for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It hints that 'site_id' refers to an Amber site, but 'api_key' is never mentioned, nor is any format, such as whether site_id is a NEM site identifier or an Amber internal ID.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('electricity price forecast') scoped to an Amber site. The word 'forecast' implicitly separates it from amber_current_price, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus amber_current_price or amber_sites, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the site must be configured in Amber first) are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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