Get Oil Storage Levels

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds useful context: it returns current levels with changes, requires an eligible account entitlement, and treats the API response as authoritative. Nothing contradicts the annotations, and the added entitlement note is valuable for safe invocation.

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 stays compact. Each sentence contributes either scope, trigger conditions, return summary, entitlement requirement, or a pointer to the billing/access tool. No filler.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what, when, and important prerequisites well. The main gap is lack of guidance on how opa_get_storage relates to opa_get_oil_inventories, and the absence of an output schema means return details are only vaguely described.

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 facility parameter is already fully documented with its enum values and default. The description adds little beyond restating Cushing and SPR, which is acceptable given the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting oil storage and inventory levels for Cushing and the SPR. It is clear about scope, but it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling opa_get_oil_inventories, so an agent may struggle to pick between them.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use when the user asks about oil inventories, storage levels, Cushing stocks, or the SPR') and routes access/pricing questions to opa_get_plans. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to the nearby oil inventories sibling.

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