eia_state_energy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. The description adds context about data coverage and codes but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination limits (though 'length' parameter has max 5000 in schema), rate limits, or handling of large result sets. It provides moderate incremental value beyond annotations.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs: the first states purpose and coverage, the second lists useful codes. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given moderate complexity (6 parameters, no required, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: source (SEDS), coverage, code meanings. It lacks details on expected output structure but sufficiently informs the agent of what data to expect. The comprehensive parameter descriptions in schema complement the description well.

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 significant value by listing additional MSN codes (e.g., CLTCB, NNTCB) with explanations beyond the schema's partial list. It clarifies the meaning of each code (e.g., trillion BTU, per capita), enhancing understanding for the 'msn' parameter. The 'state' parameter is well-described in both schema and description.

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 states 'Get state-level energy data from the State Energy Data System (SEDS)' with specific verb and resource, identifies coverage (production, consumption, expenditures, prices) and scope (all 50 states). The listed MSN codes further specify the data types, distinguishing it from sibling EIA tools that cover national or sector-specific data.

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 for state-level energy data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eia_electricity or eia_natural_gas. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, relying on the agent to infer from the description of state-level scope.

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