Get ABS Data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond stating 'normalised response shape'. This hints at data transformation but does not detail pagination, rate limits, or other API behaviors. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It could include additional context (e.g., source, data shape) without being wasteful. It is front-loaded with jargon rather than plain language.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters with one required, and an output schema exists, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'ABS' stands for, what 'SDMX' is, or what the 'normalised response shape' entails. The agent lacks essential context to understand the tool's scope and output format.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, each with clear comments (e.g., 'Non-empty dataset or table id'). The tool description does not add any semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 title 'Get ABS Data' is clear, but the description uses jargon ('Expert/source-native ABS SDMX retrieval in a normalised response shape') without explaining what ABS or SDMX are, making it vague for agents unfamiliar with these terms. It distinguishes from siblings only implicitly by mentioning ABS specifically.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_abs_dataset_structure or get_apra_data. There is no mention of usage conditions, such as requiring a dataflow_id or when to prefer this over other retrieval tools.

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