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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns time-series data, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response structure.

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?

Front-loaded and appropriately sized, with examples that earn their place. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the tool name and title, but overall the description is efficient and readable.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool: it explains the fallback use case and gives series-ID examples. It could say more about the returned time-series format or pagination, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds concrete examples of EIA series IDs (e.g. PET.RWTC.D, NG.RNGWHHD.D), which meaningfully clarifies the most important parameter beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('EIA series lookup') and clarifies that it returns time-series data for a given series ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling EIA tools by positioning itself as the flexible fallback, though it does not name specific 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this tool when no other tool covers the specific need, establishing a clear fallback condition. However, it does not name the alternative EIA-specific tools or state when not to use it beyond that general condition.

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