eia_electricity_facility_fuel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or potential side effects. For a data retrieval tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and data source. There is no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight key usage aspects given the complexity of the tool.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and source, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or practical usage scenarios, which are important for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without structured guidance.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the data granularity ('annual and monthly') and source context, but does not provide additional semantics like parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples of valid inputs for fields like 'state' or 'fuel_type'.

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 purpose: 'Get annual and monthly operational data for individual power plants by energy source and equipment type.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('operational data'), and scope ('individual power plants'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'eia_electricity_operational_data' or 'eia_electricity_generator_capacity', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 alternatives. It mentions the data source ('Form EIA-923'), but does not indicate specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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