get_changed_series_data_from_cube_pid_coord

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several notable behaviors: automatic padding to 10 dimensions, disabling SSL verification, the return type (Dict[str, Any]), and specific exceptions (httpx.HTTPStatusError, ValueError, Exception). It also includes an important citation requirement for the final response. This is strong transparency for a read operation, though it does not mention any potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized for a tool with error handling and usage notes. It starts with the core purpose, then lists the endpoint, return type, exceptions, and an important usage note. The only redundancy is the coordinate padding mention, which also appears in the schema, but this does not significantly detract from the overall clarity.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good amount of context: it explains the purpose, endpoint, return type, error conditions, and a critical citation requirement. It lacks a concrete example of the return value and does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of exception documentation, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 50%, with coordinate having a description but productId having none. The tool description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that productId is a 'Cube ProductId' (a cube identifier) and mentions coordinate padding, which partially compensates for the schema gap. However, it does not explain how to obtain or validate productId, leaving some ambiguity. The coordinate format is already covered in the schema, so the description adds limited extra value.

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 states the tool's action: 'Retrieves changed series data (data points that have changed) using Cube ProductId and Coordinate string.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the mention of using both ProductId and Coordinate distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_changed_series_data_from_vector and get_changed_series_list.

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 implies usage by specifying the input method (ProductId and Coordinate) and references the corresponding POST endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_changed_series_data_from_vector, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative suggestions. The guidance is mostly implicit from the tool name and description.

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