eia_natural_gas_exploration_reserves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with 6 parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and stays focused, though it could be slightly more specific about the data scope to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how results are structured, or provide context about the EIA data source. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'data including resource discovery and stockpile levels,' which loosely relates to the 'route' parameter but doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.

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 natural gas exploration and reserves data including resource discovery and stockpile levels.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('natural gas exploration and reserves data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'eia_natural_gas_production' or 'eia_natural_gas_storage' beyond mentioning 'exploration and reserves'.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools, specify use cases, or indicate prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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