Get Price Forecasts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it requires an account entitlement and returns only forecast data available to the account. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add usage guidance and an entitlement caveat. There is no filler, no repetition of schema data, and every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: source, use case, authorization requirement, and a pointer to the current-pricing sibling. It does not elaborate on output format, commodities covered, or time horizons, but the low parameter surface makes those gaps relatively minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 energy price forecasts from EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) and other sources.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and refers to usage intent ('price predictions, outlooks, or where oil/gas prices are heading'). It distinguishes itself from opa_get_plans but does not explicitly differentiate from price-adjacent siblings like opa_get_futures or opa_get_history.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use when the user asks about price predictions, outlooks, or where oil/gas prices are heading.' It also points to opa_get_plans as the alternative for current access and pricing. However, it lacks explicit exclusions for other forecast-related siblings, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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