Compare Series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool refuses to compare a series against its own seasonally-adjusted counterpart and explains the rationale, which is valuable, non-obvious behavior. It does not mention error formats or side effects, but the key refusal behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core action before a necessary caveat. The parenthetical and example guidance are directly useful and earn their place.

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?

The description covers the most important behavioral edge case and points to a sibling tool for verification, and an output schema is present. However, it leaves transform and date-parameter semantics unexplained, and with no annotations the overall picture is incomplete for an agent needing to construct a correct call.

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 missing parameter documentation. It offers some meaning for series_ids by saying the tool aligns two or more series, but it gives no explanation of date_from, date_to, or transform. An agent would not know what values transform accepts or how the date range is interpreted from this description.

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 the tool aligns two or more series on a common date index, which is a specific action and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_series or compute, but the alignment behavior is distinctive enough to separate it from those 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 gives explicit guidance to call describe_series on each id first when unsure about seasonally-adjusted versus not-adjusted comparisons. It does not address when compare_series should be chosen over get_series or compute, but the provided alternative guidance is concrete and actionable.

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