get_nbs_stat

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no note on data freshness, latency, rate limits, or whether codes can be wrong/empty. 'Query' weakly implies a read, but nothing beyond that is stated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the operation and its key input.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and both parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a query tool with zero annotations, the description omits behavioral and usage context (read-only nature, where indicator codes come from) that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, and the schema itself gives a concrete example ('A0201' for GDP) and the dbcode default meaning ('hgnd' = national annual). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'indicator code', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Query) and resource (NBS macro statistic) and identifies the keying mechanism (indicator code), which is enough to distinguish it from generic stat tools like get_indicator or get_ministry_stat at a glance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ministry_stat or get_indicator, nor any note that the indicator code must first be sourced (e.g. from list_indicators). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by indicator code'.

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