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

The annotations already convey that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context—monthly cadence, sector options, and BTU units—but doesn't disclose details like pagination, state-level behavior, or output structure. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 description is short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence carries relevant information. The sector list repeats the schema enum, but in a natural-language summary it helps the agent quickly grasp the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 read-only data query with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states the data cadence, sector options, and returned units, so an agent can reasonably select and invoke the tool without further context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the sector list and the BTU unit of the returned data.

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 clearly identifies the resource: monthly US energy consumption by sector from EIA, and explains the returned quantity in BTU equivalents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling EIA tools, but the sector focus and energy-consumption framing make the purpose clear.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need monthly US energy consumption broken down by sector. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related EIA tools such as eia_electricity_state or eia_natural_gas.

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