bpstat_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful constraints — max 10 series, last_n capped at 1-500, and that since overrides last_n — which goes beyond the schema. It does not cover error behavior for invalid ids, rate limits, or whether the call is purely read-only, so the disclosure is helpful but partial.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with one line per parameter. Slightly terse phrasing ('Observations of ...') is the only cost; there is no redundant filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all four inputs are covered. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (what happens when more than 10 ids are passed, or an unknown id), which matters for a data-retrieval tool but is minor.

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%, yet the Args block documents all four parameters: types, example format ([12559924]), numeric ranges (max 10; 1-500), the 'YYYY-MM-DD' format for since, allowed lang values ('PT'/'EN'), and the interaction rule that since overrides last_n. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 resource ('Observations of Banco de Portugal series') and explicitly routes id discovery to the sibling bpstat_search, which is the one sibling an agent could confuse it with. The verb+resource pairing plus the cross-reference makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 mention of 'ids from bpstat_search' implies the correct call sequence (search first, then fetch), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' statement, and no guidance on choosing between last_n and since beyond the precedence note.

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