eia_petroleum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with those. The description adds product-code context but does not disclose operational details such as return shape, units, pagination behavior, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a scannable bulleted code list, with no filler. The slight redundancy and mismatch around 'heating oil' (mentioned in the intro but absent from the code list) keeps it from being perfect.

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 all six parameters fully documented, no required parameters, and safety covered by annotations, an agent can invoke this tool correctly using the schema plus the product-code mapping. The lack of an output schema and absence of an explicit note about return format or units are minor gaps, but the description is still complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 even without description-level parameter help. The product code list adds real semantic value by mapping specific series IDs (EPCBRENT, EPCWTI, EMM_EPMRU_PTE_NUS_DPG, etc.) to human-readable products, directly assisting with the `product` parameter. Other parameters like start/end/length/frequency are already fully described in the schema.

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+resource ('Get petroleum/oil prices') and enumerates concrete product categories, separating it clearly from sibling EIA tools like eia_electricity and eia_natural_gas. The only minor flaw is that 'heating oil' is mentioned in the overview but has no matching product code in the list, yet the core purpose remains unambiguous.

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 intended use case is clear: retrieving petroleum and oil price data. Product codes and categories give an agent enough context to select this tool over EIA siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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