Browse EIA routes / dataset metadata

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: behavior depends on node type, returns different response structures, and tolerates leading/trailing slashes and 'v2/' prefix. It does not contradict annotations. Minor deduction because it doesn't discuss rate limits or error handling, but the added context is substantive.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted breakdown of node-type behavior, and a final usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important guidance is front-loaded. It is detailed but not bloated.

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 (has_output_schema=true), the description correctly avoids explaining raw return fields. It explains the two response types, how to interpret them, and how to feed results into eia_get_data. This is complete for the tool's complexity and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'route' parameter, and the schema already documents the tolerated slash/prefix behavior and examples. The tool description reinforces this but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states it 'Explores the EIA dataset tree, or fetches a leaf dataset's metadata' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly calling itself 'the primary discovery tool' and referencing eia_get_data, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Start with route="" to discover datasets, then drill down. This is the primary discovery tool; call it before eia_get_data...' It also explains the two node types and what the agent should do with each response, making the usage context very clear.

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