peak_demand

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a single timestamp and demand value, which is clear. However, it does not cover edge cases (e.g., no data in range, invalid region), error handling, or any mutation aspects. For a simple read-only query, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and there is no fluff. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 the simplicity of the tool (3 string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. Missing details like error handling or behaviour when no data exists are minor gaps for such a straightforward query.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: region is a 'balancing authority code', start and end are 'inclusive start/end date' with format 'YYYY-MM-DD'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's plain string type. However, it could be improved by providing examples or a list of valid region codes.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'single highest-demand hour', with clear scope of 'one region over a date range'. It also mentions the return values (timestamp and demand in MWh). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_demand (general data) and daily_demand (per-day peaks).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like query_demand, daily_demand, or compare_regions. The context of 'one region' is stated but not contrasted with multi-region tools.

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