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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return scope (production, consumption, prices, expenditures across fuel types), but does not mention potential limitations, data sources beyond EIA, or any edge cases. It provides a reasonable overview but not comprehensive detail.

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 appropriately sized: a clear opening sentence, a brief summary of what's returned, and a parameter format explanation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description covers the essential context: the purpose, the data scope, and the parameter format. It could mention EIA-specific caveats, but overall it is complete enough for a competent agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage, leaving the 'state' parameter entirely unexplained. The description fully compensates by specifying the format: 'Two-letter US state abbreviation (e.g. 'CA', 'TX', 'NY').' This is essential information that makes the parameter usable.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource ('comprehensive energy profile for a US state from the EIA'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_electricity_data, get_natural_gas_data, get_petroleum_data) by covering all fuel types instead of a single one.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding a state's full energy landscape.' It implies when to use this tool (when a comprehensive overview is needed), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is still better than vague guidance.

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