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

With readOnlyHint=true already supplied, the description adds real context: results are newest first, metadata is bundled with observations, attribution carries the single data-source credit, and discontinued series have stopped updating at the source. It stops short of disclosing truncation/pagination behavior when limit is smaller than the available history.

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?

Core facts are front-loaded: what is returned, where ids come from, then the discontinued-series caveat and date formats. The one efficiency cost is that nearly every sentence is restated in Japanese, roughly doubling length without adding new information for a single-language reader.

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 carry the return shape — and it does, specifying date/value pairs, embedded series metadata, and the attribution field. The only gap is what happens when limit cuts off the requested range or when from/to span no observations.

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%, with each parameter already documented including the YYYY-MM-DD pattern, default 100 and maximum 5000. The description reinforces the id format with example codes and the date conventions, and clarifies that limit/ordering return newest first, but adds little the schema does not already state.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — observations (date, value) for one macroeconomic series — plus ordering ('newest first') and the accompanying metadata. It also names the sibling get_economic_indicators as the source of valid ids, so an agent can distinguish it from that tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_economic_indicators to obtain series ids and explains how to interpret series flagged discontinued: true, including the replacementId substitute. It does not state when to avoid this tool or how it differs from the broader get_economic_indicators call beyond the id lookup.

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