eia_natural_gas_prices

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 only states what data is retrieved without mentioning rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination behavior (though 'limit' parameter hints at it), error conditions, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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. Every word contributes to understanding what data is available. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating price types with commas or bullets for better readability.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., route vs. product), what the default behavior is, what the response looks like, or provide examples of valid combinations. For a tool with this many options and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 8 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing price types (spot, futures, etc.) which might relate to the 'product' parameter, but doesn't explain parameter relationships, dependencies, or provide examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Get natural gas price data' with specific examples of price types (spot prices, futures, citygate prices, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on price data rather than consumption, production, or other natural gas metrics. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb beyond 'Get' or mention the data source (EIA).

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 like eia_natural_gas_summary or eia_explore_routes, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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