economic_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the tool cross-sources RBA and ABS data and returns 5 indicators, but it does not state whether historical periods return exact matches, what happens on missing data, or any rate limits. It is not misleading but omits behavioral details that would enrich transparency.

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 three sentences, with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and examples, the second gives usage context, and the third adds cross-sourcing and efficiency value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an aggregate snapshot tool. It states the exact indicators returned and the recommended use case. It does not describe the response structure, but that is less critical for a simple aggregate without nested objects.

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 only parameter, period, has full schema coverage (100%) with a description and examples for 'latest', 'YYYY-Qn', 'YYYY', and 'YYYY-MM'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema covers the semantics accurately.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource (5 headline AU economic indicators), and lists them explicitly. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it replaces 5 separate sister-MCP calls, making it clear why this aggregated call is unique.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when an agent needs a macro economic snapshot.' It implies an alternative (making separate calls) but does not name specific sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This meets the spirit of usage guidance but lacks formal exclusions.

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