eia_electricity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail like units (cents/kWh, MWh, M$), but it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or the fact that 'generation' is not a supported data type. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 front-loaded: one functional sentence followed by two terse reference lines. Every sentence contributes either the core action or key vocabulary, with no filler or duplicated parameter details.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description could do more to explain response behavior, pagination, or the relationship between 'generation' and supported data types. However, the schema thoroughly documents every parameter, and the description covers the primary conceptual axes (sector and data type) well enough for a basic call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by spelling out sector abbreviations and providing units for each data type (cents/kWh, M$, MWh), which is not present in the schema. The sector list in the description also includes 'TRA', which is absent from the schema enum, creating a small inconsistency but still offering useful context.

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 names the tool's function: get electricity retail prices, generation, or consumption by state and sector. It is specific enough to separate this from non-electricity EIA siblings, e.g., eia_petroleum or eia_natural_gas, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The word 'generation' is slightly misleading because the data_type enum does not include generation, but the data-type list quickly clarifies what is actually available.

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 context by specifying electricity data and enumerating sectors and data types, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like eia_state_energy or eia_total_energy. There are no exclusions or routing guidance beyond the resource being electricity, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names.

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