insee_get_indicator_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-style metadata operation and that it returns an IndicatorMetadata object, which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior, idbank validity requirements, or any rate limits, but for a simple metadata getter this is acceptable rather than severely lacking.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence followed by short Args and Returns lines. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant exposition.

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?

For a tool with a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the operation, the target resource, and the meaning of the only parameter. It omits explicit sibling differentiation, but the low complexity and output schema coverage make the definition functionally complete.

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 only defines idbank as a string with 0% description coverage. The description's Args line says it is 'The INSEE IDBANK identifier,' which adds the semantic role of the parameter. However, it does not provide an example, format, or guidance on how to obtain a valid idbank, so compensation for the schema gap is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full metadata for an INSEE series by idbank code.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling data-retrieval and search tools, and the idbank-scoped target leaves no ambiguity about what it operates on.

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 this tool should be used when full metadata for a known INSEE idbank is needed, and it contrasts implicitly with data-fetching or search siblings. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names an alternative, such as insee_search_indicators for discovering idbanks or insee_get_data for series values.

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