reunion_get_petroleum_consumption

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by stating the data is sorted by year descending and sourced from SDES via data.regionreunion.com. However, it does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, whether historical data only or includes projections, or how missing years are handled.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys the essential information: what is returned, its purpose, breakdown, sorting, and source. It is front-loaded with the key data, avoiding unnecessary detail, though it could be more structured.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should specify the return structure (e.g., columns or fields). It mentions 'broken down by product' but not the exact fields. It provides source and sorting but omits other contextual details like temporal range or data refresh frequency.

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 the two parameters (year and limit) with descriptions already. The tool description does not add additional context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns annual local consumption of petroleum products in La Réunion, broken down by product (gasoline, diesel, etc.), in cubic meters. It also lists use cases (energy-transition monitoring, GHG estimates, transport-policy analysis). The tool is distinct from its siblings, which cover topics like population, air quality, or commune profiles.

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 explicitly mentions it's useful for energy-transition monitoring, GHG emission estimates, and transport-policy analysis, guiding when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context of the tool and its siblings makes the intended usage clear.

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