SMI: latest print

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: 'Information only; contains no market prices' and 'Free, no key' disclose content scope and auth requirements, which the annotations do not.

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?

Dense but purposeful: the core action comes first, return contents follow, and the operative constraints ('no market prices', 'Free, no key') land early enough. The sub-index list is long but serves a real disambiguation purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned shape and its scoping/legal caveats. It is complete enough to call correctly for a single-optional-parameter read tool, though it omits pagination/size expectations.

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 enum values are fully enumerated, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about passing sub_index to get one sub-index in full essentially restates the schema's own description rather than adding format or default-behavior detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('the latest weekly print' of the SMI) and enumerates exactly what it returns (headline figure, one-line summary per sub-index, print id, data dates, rules links, GCAT attribution). The word 'latest' implicitly separates it from smi_get_history/smi_get_print without ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied by 'latest weekly print' and the pointer to 'Pass sub_index to get one sub-index in full', but no sibling (e.g. smi_get_history for past prints, smi_get_print) is named and no when-not condition is given. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection to inference.

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