Explain Break

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output behavior: returns each documented break, describes the plain-language format, and covers the no-break case by saying it reports there are none. This is meaningful and useful, though it does not discuss error handling or side effects, which are less critical for a read-like explanation tool.

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 one purposeful sentence with no filler. It front-loads the triggering user question and immediately states the return behavior, making the tool's purpose scannable and complete.

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 has a single required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior well: what breaks are returned, how they are presented, and the empty case. It could add a note clarifying the relationship between the 'given date' phrasing and the series_id-only input, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and call the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented series_id parameter. It does not describe the identifier's format, origin, or examples; it only refers to 'this series.' The parameter name and type are fairly self-explanatory, which keeps the score at a minimum viable level rather than lower.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it explains why a series jumps or changes by returning each documented break in plain language. The listed break types (rebase, methodology change, classification revision, census baseline shift) make the tool's domain unmistakable and distinguish it from generic siblings like get_series or describe_series.

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 opening question, 'Why does this series jump/change at a given date?', gives a clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scenario is concrete enough for an agent to route to this tool.

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