ecos_get_statistic_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens if invalid parameters are provided. The description only adds the cycle format, which is minimal.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence is a list of cycle options, which could be more structured. Still, no redundant information is present.

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 tool has 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of start and end, the format of item_code1 and item_code2, or the expected return format. The context signals confirm high complexity, and the description fails to provide adequate guidance for an agent.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only explains the cycle parameter and leaves the other five parameters (stat_code, start, end, item_code1, item_code2) completely undocumented. The schema provides no default values for required parameters, so the description adds value only for cycle. This is a partial compensation, earning a baseline-adjusted 3.

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 that the tool retrieves numeric data using a stat_code obtained from a sibling tool (ecos_search_statistics), and specifies the cycle options. It effectively distinguishes its purpose from the search tool and other sibling tools.

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 mentions that the stat_code should come from a sibling tool, providing a basic usage context. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs. other tools like ecos_get_key_indicator or kosis_get_statistics_data, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the input schema.

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