macro_snapshot_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses data sources (ABS labour-force, national-accounts, residential-property indexes) and notes variability ('where state-level is published'), which adds useful context. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or any rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key metrics, and every sentence provides actionable information. It is concise without sacrificing 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what metrics are returned, the geographic scope, data sources, and usage instructions. Minor omissions (e.g., caveats about data availability for smaller territories) prevent a perfect score.

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% — the state parameter is fully described with enum values, examples, and a note on omission. The description reinforces this ('Pass a state code... omit for all') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource: an AU state-level macroeconomic snapshot covering five distinct metrics (unemployment rate, state final demand growth, dwelling-price change, CPI, population growth). It also scopes the tool to a state or all jurisdictions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like economic_dashboard or state_fiscal_snapshot.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Single call answers how is <state> tracking economically?' and explains how to use the state parameter ('Pass a state code to focus on one jurisdiction; omit for all eight states/territories'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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