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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data's content and hints at weekly cadence via 'weekly change', but says nothing about update lag, source freshness, or that it is a read-only snapshot — and the 'not trading advice' caveat is helpful framing rather than a behavioral trait.

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 resource, then a dense but informative enumeration of returned fields, closed by a short disclaimer. Every clause carries content; the single long sentence is slightly list-heavy 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must (and largely does) enumerate what comes back, covering all the reported categories. It stops short of stating update frequency/lag or units, but is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret a zero-arg data tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema. Nothing is misdocumented.

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 data resource (WTI crude oil positioning from the CFTC Commitments of Traders) and enumerates exactly what it returns: managed money long/short/net, weekly change, ratio, 3-year percentile, producers, swap dealers, open interest. This clearly separates it from siblings like oil_prices, oil_inventories, and oil_supply 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?

Usage is only implied — the description tells you what data it holds, from which an agent can infer it's for positioning/crowding analysis, but it never says when to choose this over oil_markets, oil_prices, or oil_inventories. The closing line 'Data, not trading advice' is a disclaimer, not usage guidance.

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