get_macro_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the data is historical BLS series with MoM/YoY changes. It does not mention output conventions, update cadence, rate limits, or any operational limitations, and the 'BLS' phrasing omits the non-BLS sources allowed by the schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core function and value without repeating schema details or adding filler. The em-dash clause provides useful context about inflation and labour without bloating the description.

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?

With a rich, fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description provides enough orientation for an agent to understand the tool's domain and select it appropriately. It is slightly incomplete in that it emphasizes BLS and does not hint at the markets source, but the schema covers that gap.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (months, series, source) at 100% coverage, including enumerations of available series. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond pointing at BLS, so the 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 identifies the tool as providing historical macroeconomic series from the BLS with month-over-month and year-over-year changes, which distinguishes it from the market, filing, and company-focused sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets,' but the tool name and content make the purpose unambiguous.

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 numbers behind the inflation and labour narrative' gives clear context for when to use this tool versus general market or company data tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude or mention the source='markets' option, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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