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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the weekly cadence and the national-production default, but doesn't disclose response format, pagination behavior, or any data availability limitations.

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 compact and well-structured: source and cadence first, then metrics, then filtering, then defaults. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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-retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core aspects: metrics, filtering, default behavior, and cadence. It does not describe the output schema or pagination, but annotations and the parameter schema carry much of the load.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic enrichment by defining each metric (e.g., 'production' as US field production and 'stocks' as commercial crude stocks) and explicitly stating defaults for metric and region.

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 identifies a specific resource: weekly US crude oil supply data from EIA, and enumerates the available metrics. It distinguishes itself from other EIA tools by topic, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not name sibling alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related EIA tools such as eia_gasoline_prices, eia_natural_gas, or eia_series_lookup. It only mentions the PADD filter and default behavior, leaving selection to inference.

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