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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses free-tier limits (most recent 30 days), that a Pro key unlocks full history, that 'projection' rows are forecasts not observations, that incomplete days are flagged and never filled, and the licensing terms. It omits any explicit read-only statement or rate-limit detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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 content is front-loaded with the data source and coverage before the caveats, and each sentence (projections, access tiers, data quality, licensing) carries distinct information. It is dense but not padded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source, coverage, forecast vs observed distinction, access tiers, and data-integrity behavior. Return-shape and pagination specifics are only lightly touched, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly are present.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description mentions the series covered and the projection status but adds no id format, date syntax, or topic-to-series mapping beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific data source (EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook) and enumerates the exact content covered: electricity prices by ISO, ERCOT load/generation, U.S. generation shares, and Henry Hub. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as market_wholesale_prices, market_generation, or market_gas_prices.

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 via its content scope and the projection/free-tier caveats, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance. An agent must infer that this is the STEO-specific feed rather than one of the narrower market_* tools.

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