Get Data Quality Report

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that per-commodity reports require a paid plan and describes the output structure (overall grade/score, dimension scores, or catalogue-wide summary). This goes beyond simply restating the annotation and gives the agent a clearer behavioral model.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core verb, and every sentence conveys necessary information: what the tool does, the two modes, when to use it, and a cost caveat. No fluff.

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 simple read-only reporting tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation modes, what the response contains, and access restrictions. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully describes the 'commodity' parameter with examples and behavior when omitted. The description reinforces this but doesn't add substantial new semantics, so the baseline 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 'Get OilPriceAPI's own data-quality grades,' a specific verb+resource that distinguishes this tool from price/history siblings. It also explains the two modes of operation (with or without a commodity code), making its purpose 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?

It explicitly says 'Use when the user asks how reliable/complete a series is, or which series carry the highest quality grades.' It also notes the paid-plan requirement for per-commodity reports, which is an important usage constraint. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use exclusions, though the distinct purpose implies this.

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