pgiq_cheapest_window

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the result is a 'modelled daily shape, not a real-time forecast' and explains the two modes. This adds significant value beyond the input schema.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence clearly states purpose, next two add necessary details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Description explains modes and warns it's a model, but does not define 'cheapest window' precisely (e.g., number of hours) or describe output format. No output schema exists to compensate.

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% (market parameter has description). Description adds behavioral context: 'With a market, returns its typical daily price shape and cheapest window; without one, returns the cheapest grids ranked by trough price.' This goes beyond the schema.

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 returns 'the cheapest hours to run a flexible load', with specific behaviors for with/without a market parameter. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., pgiq_best, pgiq_markets) by focusing on cheapest window for load scheduling.

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 implies usage context (flexible load scheduling) and explains behavior based on market presence, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings or provide alternative recommendations.

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