mbs_yearbook_tables

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only list operation and mentions the optional keyword filter. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination limits, sorting, or authentication requirements, which are common for list tools. Still, the description does not mislead and covers the core behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('List Statistical Yearbook tables') and includes all essential information. It is concise and free of redundant phrasing.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (chapter + table label + PDF/XLS links). It also specifies the required year and optional query filter without excess detail. For a simple list tool, this is complete and self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'year' and 'query' have descriptions). The description adds value by providing concrete keyword examples ('electricity, tourism, population'), which go beyond the schema's generic wording. This helps the agent understand the expected format and scope of the query parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Statistical Yearbook tables'), and a specific scope ('for a year edition'). It also enumerates the output contents (chapter, table label, PDF/XLS links), making it distinct from sibling tools like mbs_yearbook_editions, which likely lists editions rather than tables.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list tables for a given year edition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous, so no further guidance is needed. The optional keyword filter further clarifies how to narrow results.

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