Get RBA Table

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond stating that the response is 'normalised', which implies a consistent shape but does not detail pagination, rate limits, or data volume expectations.

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, but it includes redundant and jargon-heavy phrases like 'Expert/source-native' which obscure meaning. It could be more concise and clear.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, an output schema, and good annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on how to use the parameters together (e.g., date range vs last_n) and does not address any caveats.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Non-empty dataset or table id', 'Optional ISO date bound'). The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 mentions 'RBA statistical table retrieval' and 'normalised response shape' but uses jargon like 'Expert/source-native' without explaining what that means. It does not clearly state that it retrieves a specific table by ID and allows filtering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_rba_tables only implicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_economic_series or list_rba_tables. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or typical use cases.

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