Get Data Quality Report

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing access variability: the summary works on any valid key while per-commodity details vary, and an eligible account entitlement is required. It also notes that the API response is authoritative, which helps set expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a few compact sentences to cover modes, usage signals, and access caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes both return shapes: the per-series quality report with dimension scores and the catalog summary with grade distribution. It also covers eligibility, mode-dependent access, and points to opa_get_plans for entitlements, leaving no critical gap for invocation.

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% and the only parameter is documented in the schema. The description restates and slightly enriches the parameter's behavior by giving examples and explaining the two modes, but it does not need to carry additional semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get OilPriceAPI's own data-quality grades.' It clearly distinguishes the two operation modes (with or without a commodity code) and explains what each returns, making it unique among the sibling data-retrieval tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks how reliable/complete a series is, or which series carry the highest quality grades.' It also routes access/pricing questions to opa_get_plans, giving the agent a clear decision path versus an alternative tool.

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