eia_total_energy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get' is consistent. It adds useful context by listing the available MSN codes and their meanings, which explains the scope of returned series. However, it does not describe output format, pagination behavior, or the fact that the code list is partial (e.g., no price or production codes despite the intro mentioning prices).

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 tightly written: one introductory sentence establishes purpose and scope, followed by a terse bullet list of codes. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema or title.

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 read-only overview tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the core purpose is clear and the MSN code list materially improves invocation. Yet gaps remain: the intro references 'prices' and 'production' but no corresponding MSN codes are listed, and there is no description of the API response structure (no output schema exists). This makes it adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value for the msn parameter by enumerating seven specific MSN codes with plain-language definitions, which the schema alone does not provide. Other parameters (start, end, frequency, length, offset) rely on the schema's already clear descriptions, so the contribution is concentrated on msn.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: monthly/annual U.S. energy overview across production, consumption, imports, exports, and prices. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sector-specific EIA tools (eia_petroleum, eia_electricity, eia_natural_gas, eia_state_energy) by emphasizing a cross-sector aggregate view.

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 implies usage for broad U.S. energy overviews by naming aggregate categories and providing MSN codes for common series, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the sector-specific EIA siblings or when to omit the msn parameter. The schema's msn description says 'Omit for overview,' but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description. Thus usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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