eia_explore_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's function but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what the response format looks like, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core function and follows with practical application.

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 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, for a metadata exploration tool that likely returns complex structured information about API endpoints, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about response format. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but could be more comprehensive.

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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description adds some context by mentioning examples ('electricity', 'natural-gas') and the purpose of discovering metadata, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Explore available EIA API routes and their metadata' with the specific action 'discover available data series, facets, and parameters for any endpoint.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all data retrieval tools for specific domains, while this is a metadata exploration tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the description text itself.

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 context ('Use this to discover available data series, facets, and parameters for any endpoint'), suggesting this is a preparatory tool for understanding what data is available before using specific retrieval tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling data retrieval tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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