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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It usefully discloses latest-vintage semantics, the point tuple shape, and the shortid linkage, but it says nothing about error behavior, ordering, missing values, authentication, or rate limits.

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 dense sentences front-load the core behavior and follow with the output format. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape; it provides the point tuple but not the full response container. It also omits failure modes and behavior for invalid or duplicate codes, leaving moderate gaps for a tool with only two parameters.

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 description clarifies that 'codes' means up to 8 series codes, supplementing the bare schema, while the limit parameter is already defined in the schema with default and maximum values. It does not explain accepted code formats or how 'latest vintage' interacts with the limit parameter.

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 a time-series retrieval tool for up to 8 series codes and specifies the per-point format. It references get_datum but does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus get_movers or search_series, 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?

The phrase 'up to 8 series codes' implies batch use and the pointer to get_datum suggests a follow-up workflow, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent must infer the relationship between this tool and its siblings.

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