eia_state_energy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the data source and MSN codes. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as response format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no state parameter is provided. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and well-organized, beginning with a clear summary sentence followed by a structured list of MSN codes. Every element is directly useful, with no filler or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of data scope and code meanings, but since there is no output schema, it does not explain the response structure or how the data is returned. It also leaves some behavior unspecified (e.g., whether state is optional for all-state data), though the schema covers parameter defaults. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by providing a curated list of MSN codes with their full names and units, going beyond the abbreviated examples in the schema. This helps the agent choose the correct code for the desired metric.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get state-level energy data from the State Energy Data System (SEDS).' It further specifies what is covered (production, consumption, expenditures, and prices by energy source) and the geographic scope (all 50 states), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like eia_petroleum or eia_electricity.

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 clear context on the type of data this tool returns—state-level energy statistics from SEDS—but does not explicitly mention when to use this over siblings or any exclusions. The scope is well-defined enough that an agent can infer when this is the appropriate tool.

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