Unite Research

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: values retain Portuguese display formatting (a non-obvious output quirk) and pagination continues via next_cursor, both of which the annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then behavior, then pagination. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description supplies the two non-schema facts an agent needs (formatting quirk, cursor continuation). It stops just short of noting the origin of chart_id or the cursor/offset trade-off.

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%, with limit, cursor, offset and chart_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes pagination via the response field name 'next_cursor' and adds no syntax or selection guidance for limit vs cursor vs legacy offset.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a published chart'), then enumerates the payload contents (values, units, comparison, period, population, source, methodology). This clearly separates it from list_charts, which only enumerates chart identifiers, though the sibling get_citation is never addressed.

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?

Usage is only implied: get a chart by id, and follow next_cursor for further rows. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_charts/get_citation, no prerequisites (e.g. that chart_id must come from list_charts), and no exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what content is surfaced, but says nothing about behavior beyond content — e.g. what happens if chart_id is omitted, whether missing citations error, or any caching/rate behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core retrieval scope and then the optional extension. No filler or restated title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still helpfully previews them. The chart_id linkage to list_charts is present; only the absent 'when vs get_chart_data' routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so chart_id's enum is fully documented there (baseline 3). The description adds real meaning by clarifying the parameter is optional and that supplying it widens the response to chart-specific comparison, period and population.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('citation') and enumerates the content returned (source, canonical URL, dates, methodology, interpretation limits, reuse terms). This distinguishes it from get_chart_data/list_charts by implication, though neither sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence signals the optional chart-specific mode, and the schema notes chart_id comes from list_charts. There is no explicit 'use this when you need attribution/provenance rather than the data values' statement or named alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('published') and enumerates returned metadata fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result-size limits beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the purpose and scope are front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly required, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could go slightly further on pagination (cursor vs. offset interplay), but that gap is minor since the schema covers it.

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%, with limit, query, cursor, and offset all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by topic' hints at the query parameter but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) plus resource (charts) with a clear scope: published, Black Friday Brazil, by topic. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_chart_data by assigning that tool the value-retrieval role.

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?

Names the alternative (get_chart_data) and the condition that selects it ('to retrieve the values'), giving the agent a clear routing decision. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use this tool (e.g., when you already have a chart ID), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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