interconnection-queue-tracker

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

Annotations give only the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond it: metered Apify run at $0.008/result with plan-based discounts, no charge on failed runs, invalid ISO codes fail before billing, snapshot mode writes to the actor's own KV store, and low maxResults truncates trailing ISOs and excludes them from withdrawn detection. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a metered, stateful call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clearly labelled COST AND SIDE EFFECTS block. The pricing paragraph is slightly repetitive (two price restatements) but each section is scannable and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and largely does it — it names the emitted row types (new, withdrawn, status_change, cod_slip, iso_summary) and describes synthetic rows. It does not specify pagination or the shape of an individual queue record, which is the only notable gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds value: the whole-federation size (~18,200 records) and the advice to raise maxResults to ~20000, plus that unrecognised ISOs now fail the run rather than silently falling back to all seven. It stops short of explaining priorItems/priorKvKey interaction in any detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 (normalize + track deltas) on a specific resource (US ISO/RTO interconnection queues) and enumerates the exact 7 sources covered. The sibling tools are other gov-data utilities, none of which touch interconnection queues, so an agent can route unambiguously without opening a schema.

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?

Names an audience (renewables developers, land agents, energy consultants) and gives clear mode-selection context (snapshot vs. delta, deltaOnly for scheduled monitor runs). It never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool, 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.