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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses region-code formats and a key behavioral restriction (kabupaten/kota only for certain indicators), but omits safety status (e.g., read-only), rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

A single, dense sentence with no filler text. However, the critical indicator-compatibility constraint is buried at the end rather than front-loaded, slightly reducing clarity.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, region formats, and indicator-region compatibility. It omits how to discover valid indicator IDs (e.g., via list_stat_indicators) and the shape of the returned time series, leaving minor gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds concrete examples ('32.73') and a crucial semantic constraint: kabupaten/kota region codes are only valid for hdi_regency and inflation_yoy_regency, which meaningfully extends the schema's bare pattern and description.

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 states a specific resource (time series of one BPS indicator for one region) and differentiates from sibling get_stat_values by emphasizing 'time series'. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternative tools, keeping it from a 5.

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 implies when the tool is applicable by specifying valid region types and the constraint that kabupaten/kota data only exists for hdi_regency and inflation_yoy_regency. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_stat_values, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining valid indicator IDs.

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