macro_usa_eia_crude_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds a data range (19950801-present) and a source URL, which is useful context, but it does not mention update frequency, units, or potential failure modes.

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 brief and to the point, with no redundancy. The inclusion of a source URL and return type is helpful, though the lack of any explanatory sentence beyond the title makes it slightly sparse.

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 simple tool with no parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and return type, but since no output schema is provided, it should describe the shape of the DataFrame (columns, units, frequency). The date range and URL help, but the description is minimal for a complete picture.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The schema is empty and fully covers all parameters (none), making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as providing the US EIA crude oil inventory report, with a specific data range and source URL. It is a specific resource, but it lacks a verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns' and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as macro_usa_api_crude_stock or macro_usa_crude_inner.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention excluded scenarios, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar crude oil data tools.

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