Get APRA Data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that only curated IDs are accepted, but does not disclose potential limits (e.g., file size, pagination, or authentication needs).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description says 'publication retrieval' while parameters allow filtering by series, dates, etc. This mismatch confuses the agent about what the tool returns (a file vs. filtered data). The description should explain the filtering capability.

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 described. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema; baseline 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 description states it retrieves APRA public XLSX publications and emphasizes only curated IDs. This clearly identifies the resource (APRA) and action (retrieval), but does not elaborate on what type of data APRA provides, which slightly reduces clarity for an unfamiliar agent.

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?

Usage is implied through naming and constraint ('only curated official APRA publication IDs'), and siblings cover other agencies (ABS, RBA). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for series-level data vs. publication retrieval.

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