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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: default base year (2015=100), available base years, monthly update cadence, historical depth back to 1972, and open-data licensing. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: return content, base year options, historical depth and update frequency, and licensing/auth. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is 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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, full schema descriptions, output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the definition covers data source, content, temporal range, update frequency, and access requirements. Nothing material is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both months and base_year already documenting defaults, examples, and the full enum list. The description largely repeats this information (available base years, default base year) without adding significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('Finland Consumer Price Index monthly data'), and source ('Statistics Finland (Stat.fi)'). It also clarifies what is returned (index point values for a chosen base year over the last N months), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling CPI tools for other countries like abs.economy.cpi and bls.macro.cpi.

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 provides clear context for selection: it is explicitly scoped to Finland and sourced from Stat.fi, and notes that no API key is required, signaling open, easy access. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that the intended use is obvious.

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