OilPriceAPI

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It clarifies this returns 'latest' (current) data and the 'front-month' limitation, but omits operational details like rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or error behaviors. Adequate for a simple read operation but not comprehensive.

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?

Four efficient sentences: purpose, usage trigger, supported contracts, and sibling alternative. Zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the core action, followed by disambiguation logic.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter price retrieval tool. The sibling distinction handles the primary scope ambiguity. Minor gap: no indication of return value structure (scalar, object, units) though this is partially implied by 'price'.

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% with complete enum descriptions ('BZ = Brent crude, CL = WTI crude'). Description reinforces these mappings ('Supports Brent (BZ) and WTI (CL) futures') but adds no syntax guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Excellent specificity: verb 'Get' + resource 'front-month futures contract price' + domain 'crude oil'. The term 'front-month' precisely scopes the data to the nearest expiry contract, distinguishing it from the sibling curve tool.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Use when the user asks about futures, forward prices, or contract prices') and clear alternative path naming the specific sibling tool for 'full forward curve' scenarios. This directly prevents confusion between opa_get_futures and opa_get_futures_curve.

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