eia_total_energy

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

The annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true', confirming the tool is read-only. The description adds context about the data fields (production, consumption, etc.) and lists MSN codes, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits (though offset/length are in schema), rate limits, or data update frequency. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a list of MSN codes. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. The list is helpful but could be slightly more compact. Overall, no superfluous content.

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 tool has 6 parameters but no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure of the response. It covers the purpose and parameter options (via schema) but lacks details on what the output contains beyond the listed categories. This is sufficient for a data retrieval tool but incomplete for an agent needing to parse results.

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?

Although the schema provides 100% description coverage for parameters, the description adds specific MSN codes with their meanings (e.g., 'ELETPUS: Electricity net generation'), which is not present in the schema. This clarifies the intended values beyond the schema's generic 'MSN code to filter by'. Other parameters are adequately covered by schema descriptions.

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 states 'Get the monthly/annual U.S. energy overview — total production, consumption, imports, exports, and prices across all energy sources.' It clearly identifies the verb (Get), resource (U.S. energy overview), and scope (total across all sources). This distinguishes it from siblings like eia_electricity, eia_natural_gas, etc., which focus on specific energy types or state-level 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 the tool is for a national total energy overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools (e.g., eia_state_energy for state data, eia_electricity for electricity-specific). No direct comparison or exclusion guidance is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer usage context.

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