Get ILOSTAT data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent and destructive=false; the description adds non-obvious behavior: raw data only (no aggregation/transformation), unfiltered dimensions return all categories, and a 30-area limit. This reveals important constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded, with every clause earning its place: purpose, filtering, constraints, raw-data guarantee, and sibling pointer. There is no redundancy with schema or annotations.

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's complexity, the description covers purpose, filtering behavior, batching/pagination constraints, raw-data semantics, and an alternative tool, while the output schema covers returns. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds concrete filter JSON, period examples, the REF_AREA requirement, and batching guidance. It does not address provenance_mode or last_n_observations, but their schema descriptions are already clear.

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 'Statistical observations from one ILOSTAT dataflow', a specific verb/resource/scope, and goes on to define filtering by dimension codes and period. It explicitly contrasts with ilo_search_indicators ('does not search indicators'), which distinguishes it from a key sibling.

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 an explicit alternative for indicator search ('use ilo_search_indicators') and provides operational guidance: REF_AREA is required, maximum 30 areas, split batches and paginate by period. It does not mention metadata/list siblings, but the main use-case boundary is clear.

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