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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by naming the upstream data source (INE Tempus3 API) and explicitly stating that no auth is required.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose and included fields come first, followed by usage guidance, then data source and auth status. Each sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter listing tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive read-only annotations, the description provides the remaining operational details an agent needs: how to source the input, where the data comes from, and the auth requirement. Nothing essential is missing.

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 single parameter operation_code already has a fully descriptive schema entry, including examples and a source reference, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description reinforces the dependency on ine.operations but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the verb and resource: it lists published data tables for a Spanish INE statistical operation, with concrete examples (IPC, EPA) and the included fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling ine-spain.reference.tables, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 instructs the agent to obtain operation_code from ine.operations, which is a useful and concrete usage prerequisite. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ine-spain.reference.tables or ine.series.data, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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