get_indicator_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the 'top' parameter cap at 1000, default 100, and constraints like dim_filters vs sex conflict. However, it omits details like rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior, making it adequate but not rich.

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 well-organized docstring with clear bullet points and sections. It is somewhat long but each part adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description covers all parameters, constraints, and cross-references (e.g., describe_indicator_dimensions). With an output schema present, return values are not needed. The description is complete for a data-fetching tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does this excellently for all 8 parameters, providing valid values, examples, units, and constraints (e.g., region_code deprecated, dim_filters interaction). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Fetch observations for one indicator with optional filters,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_indicator_data_raw, so purpose clarity is not perfect.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While parameters are explained, the description lacks context like 'when to use get_indicator_data vs get_indicator_data_raw' or 'use describe_indicator_dimensions first,' which limits usage guidance.

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