get_sdmx_rows

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that rows are capped at MAX_SDMX_ROWS, that output is always inline, and that the final response must cite specific fields. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a read-only fetch operation these are less critical. The cap and citation requirements are valuable context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 moderately long but well-organized with bullet points and clear sections. Each sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, syntax reference, row cap, and citation requirement. It could be trimmed slightly but remains efficient for a tool with multiple important constraints.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains the inline return format, row cap, and citation requirement. It also gives usage context and alternatives. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a straightforward fetch operation this is largely sufficient. The complexity is moderate, and the description covers the essential operational details.

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 80%, so most parameters (key, startPeriod, endPeriod, lastNObservations) already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds a cross-reference to get_sdmx_data for key syntax and wildcard warnings, which is helpful, but it does not explain each parameter individually. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's strong coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch SDMX observations and always return rows inline' and immediately states the intended use case ('use this when you need to embed data in an artifact or widget'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sdmx_data or get_sdmx_vector_data by emphasizing the inline return behavior.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool with concrete examples (building a chart/table/widget, sorting/filtering a small result set). It also points to an alternative for large dimensions (get_sdmx_key_for_dimension) and references get_sdmx_data for syntax rules, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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