eia_state_energy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety characteristics. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by defining the dataset scope (SEDS, all 50 states, energy categories) and listing MSN codes. It does not disclose response shape or pagination behavior, but the provided context is still useful.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact, high-value MSN code list that directly informs parameter selection. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details; every sentence and bullet contributes to correct tool use.

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, all-optional-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the dataset, scope, covered metrics, and key codes. The main gaps are the absence of explicit sibling routing and no hint about the output row structure, but these are not critical for basic 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial value by explaining MSN codes with units and definitions, including codes absent from the schema's msn description (e.g., ESTCB, CLTCB, NNTCB, NUETB). This helps an agent pick the correct msn value. Other parameters are already well described in the schema, so the description appropriately supplements rather than repeats.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('State Energy Data System (SEDS)'), and clearly scopes the data to state-level energy information for all 50 states. It also enumerates covered categories (production, consumption, expenditures, prices), which helps an agent understand exactly what this tool provides and distinguishes it from fuel-specific EIA siblings.

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 gives clear context: this is for state-level SEDS data across all 50 states, which strongly implies when it should be selected. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like eia_total_energy or eia_petroleum, nor does it state when to prefer those tools, so it falls short of explicit routing/exclusion guidance.

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