Get Price Forecasts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, setting a read-only, non-destructive baseline. The description adds meaningful context about the data source (EIA STEO and other sources) and the premium tier access requirement, but it does not detail return format, potential errors, or rate limits. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 action, then usage guidance, then return/access details. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: source, trigger, return summary, and access requirement. It is adequate for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly more specific about which commodities or the forecast horizon. This does not detract significantly from completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Schema description coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4 per the rubric.

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 retrieves energy price forecasts from EIA STEO and other sources, with a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('price forecasts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on forecasts and explicitly mentions the use case of price predictions/outlooks, which is distinct from current prices (e.g., opa_get_price) or futures.

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: 'Use when the user asks about price predictions, outlooks, or where oil/gas prices are heading.' It also notes the premium tier requirement as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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