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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's real contribution is the auth prerequisite ("Requires a connected OilPriceAPI account") and the result shape and cap. It does not say what an empty result set looks like or whether matching is prefix vs substring, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered purpose → coverage → return value → next step → prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and the core verb is front-loaded.

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, the description does the work of describing the returned fields, and it names the account requirement. Minor gaps remain: no mention of the limit parameter's role and no note on how multiple partial matches are ranked or whether a miss returns an error.

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 0%, so the schema alone explains nothing about either parameter. The description compensates for 'query' by saying it matches on name or code, but says nothing about the regex/character restrictions or the 2-60 length bounds, and it never mentions 'limit' as an input — the 10-result cap is the schema's own maximum rather than added meaning.

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 verb (Search) and resource (the OilPriceAPI commodity catalog), enumerates the covered asset classes, and specifies the match keys (name or code). It also states what comes back — at most 10 matching codes with name, category, unit and update frequency — which no sibling tool does.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: "Use it to find the code, then call energy_get_latest," which routes the agent to the correct next sibling. It stops short of stating when this tool is not appropriate (e.g., when a code is already known and energy_get_price or energy_history should be called directly).

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