eia_total_energy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the MSN codes and their meanings, which are not present in the schema. It does not disclose defaults or pagination, but those are covered in the schema. The description adds useful behavioral context for filtering without contradicting 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: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact list of MSN codes. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses a bullet list efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable sense of the data returned (production, consumption, imports, exports, prices) and the available filters via MSN codes. It doesn't explain the default behavior when msn is omitted, but that is covered in the schema. The tool is simple and read-only, so the description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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. However, the description goes beyond the schema by providing the specific MSN codes and their meanings (e.g., ELETPUS, CLTCPUS), which are essential for using the msn parameter effectively. This enhances parameter semantics significantly.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the monthly/annual U.S. energy overview — total production, consumption, imports, exports, and prices across all energy sources.' It specifies a verb, resource, and scope, and the inclusion of MSN codes differentiates it from sector-specific EIA tools like eia_petroleum or eia_electricity, which are evident from the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this aggregate tool over sector-specific ones, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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