get_series_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses batch behavior (one or many), automatic coordinate padding, pagination via _guidance, numeric code decoding requirements, and specific exception types. This goes beyond basic expectations and gives the agent a reliable mental model of the tool's behavior.

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-organized with sections for purpose, usage, notes, returns, raises, and an important reminder. It is slightly verbose for an agent-facing description, but every section adds meaningful value and no sentences are purely filler, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (list of series metadata dicts, paginated with _guidance) and explicitly lists all error types with conditions. This makes the tool self-contained for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly, especially with the important note about citing ProductId and Coordinate.

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 item and coordinate descriptions already stating the batch and padding behavior. The description repeats 'Coordinates are automatically padded' and 'Pass one item or many', but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly defines the resource as '{productId, coordinate} pairs' mapped to 'series metadata' including vectorId, titles, frequency, and UOM. It explicitly states the primary use case ('find vectorIds before fetching data'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_series_info_from_vector.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to find vectorIds before fetching data with get_sdmx_data or get_sdmx_vector_data.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a full 5.

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