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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot: per-call cost ($0.002 USDC), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and the crucial billing rule that failed calls are not charged. It also states the units as published (thousand barrels, thousand b/d, %), which prevents misinterpretation of returned magnitudes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the source and content inventory, then the temporal/unit contract, then pricing. The long series enumeration is dense but each item earns its place as a coverage claim; only the parenthetical list could be compressed further.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the description still covers source authority, series scope, temporal views, units, and payment mechanics. Remaining minor gaps are publication cadence/lag and whether history weeks are release weeks, but nothing prevents a correct call.

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 100% — 'weeks' 1-52 with default 4 and the full 'series' list with default-all and raw EIA id support (e.g. WCESTUS1) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level guidance (e.g. cost or truncation tradeoffs for large week counts), so it only meets the baseline.

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 the exact dataset (EIA Weekly Petroleum Status Report) and enumerates the covered series — crude/SPR/Cushing/gasoline/distillate/jet/propane stocks, production, imports, exports, product supplied, refinery utilization — plus the derived views (latest week, WoW change, history). That is far more specific than a sibling like energy_opec_monthly_oil_market or energy_crude_oil_brent_wti, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Use is implied by the data inventory (weekly US petroleum balances and demand) and by 'latest week, week-over-week change and recent history', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as the Brent/WTI spot tool or the OPEC monthly tool. An agent must infer selection from content overlap alone.

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