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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cadence context ('monthly') and default behavior, but says nothing about row limits or how much data a default call returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and cadence, then filters, then defaults. Minor waste in re-listing enum values that the schema already enumerates.

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 6-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers filters, defaults, and cadence, and the schema documents the start/end/limit parameters. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though no hint about expected return size.

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%, and the description largely restates the enum values already documented in the schema ('price / sales / revenue / customers / generation'). The one incremental detail is that 'US' is a national rollup, which adds slight meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (monthly state-level electricity data), a named source (EIA), and the filter dimensions, which cleanly separates it from siblings like eia_energy_consumption, eia_natural_gas, and eia_renewable_generation. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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?

The description explains the filter dimensions and the defaults ('US, all sectors, price'), which implicitly tells the agent it can call with no arguments, but it never states when to prefer this tool over the other EIA/electricity siblings or what the alternatives are.

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