get_energy_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both historical actuals and forward projections, distinguished by an isActual flag. It mentions the authoritative source (US government) and broad usage, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or access constraints. Overall, it provides sufficient behavioral context for a 0-parameter tool.

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 informative but verbose, with multiple sentences listing specific data items. While it front-loads the main purpose, some details (e.g., the long list of commodities) could be omitted or moved to an output schema. Still, every sentence adds value, but it could be more concise.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description provides all necessary context: what data is returned, its source, how actuals and projections are differentiated, and typical use cases. There is no missing critical information for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The mention of an 'isActual flag' refers to the output, not input, so it does not affect this score.

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 the US EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) covering production, consumption, and pricing of multiple energy commodities. It names specific data types (crude oil, natural gas, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like commodity_price_monitor and get_energy_breakdown by focusing on official government forecasts with a specific dataset.

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 states target users (energy traders, logistics companies, macro analysts) and provides context on when this forecast is relevant. While it doesn't provide negative guidance (when not to use), the specificity of the STEO dataset makes its application clear relative to sibling tools.

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