Get Macro Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds that the tool returns series with month-over-month and year-over-year changes, a specific behavioral characteristic beyond the annotations. It also notes the 'numbers behind the inflation and labour narrative,' providing context on the data's thematic focus. No contradictions with annotations.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core function and adds a clarifying phrase. The trailing clause '— the numbers behind the inflation and labour narrative' is slightly ornamental but not wasteful. It is well-structured and concise.

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 description covers the BLS data source and the output transformation (MoM/YoY changes), but omits the 'markets' source entirely, which is a substantial capability (policy rates, yield curve, financial conditions). Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, this omission leaves the description incomplete for guiding the agent to the full range of the tool's functions. Annotations and schema compensate, but the description doesn't fully narrate the tool's scope.

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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with detailed descriptions and defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. The schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a resource (historical macroeconomic series) and a specific verb ('Get' in title) with a focus on BLS data and month-over-month/year-over-year changes. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_analysis or get_economic_calendar by targeting historical data with period changes. However, it narrowly attributes data to BLS while the schema also supports a 'markets' source, making the description partially incomplete but not ambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving historical macro series with MoM/YoY changes, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like get_economic_calendar or get_market_analysis. It does not mention the 'markets' source option, which affects when it should be selected. This is implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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