eia_natural_gas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the schema, such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or response structure. For a read-only data fetch, the lack of additional behavioral context keeps this at a baseline 3.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the tool's output, the second packs the necessary process-code mappings. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key content is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description plus parameter schema cover the essentials: what data is returned, how to filter by price type, and date/frequency options. It does not describe units or the exact response envelope, but with 100% parameter coverage and annotations, no critical calling requirement is missing. A 4 reflects this adequate but not exhaustive completeness.

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%, so start, end, length, offset, process, and frequency are already self-documenting. The description adds value by including the PNG (Henry Hub spot) process code, which is absent from the schema's process description, and by mapping human-readable price categories to their codes. This goes beyond the schema, warranting a 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('natural gas prices'), enumerating six distinct price categories: Henry Hub spot, citygate, residential, commercial, industrial, and electric power. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling EIA tools like eia_petroleum and eia_electricity, and the title 'EIA: Natural Gas Prices' reinforces the resource.

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 when to use the tool (when natural gas prices are needed) by naming the dataset, but it does not explicitly reference alternative tools such as eia_petroleum, eia_electricity, or eia_total_energy, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The process code listing hints at filtering options but does not explain selection criteria. This is adequate implied usage but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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