get_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the output format and the effect of omitting periods/dimensions, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the returned TSV/URLs. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise with three sentences that front-load the main purpose. It uses clear structure and avoids redundancy, though a minor improvement could be to separate usage notes more clearly.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers key behaviors but omits details about the detail parameter, dimension_at_observation, and how the reproducible URLs are structured. It is sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that dimension_filters can be a string (JSON-encoded), the effect of omitting dimensions, and the Buddhist Era year format. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 verb 'fetch', the resource 'observations for a dataflow', and the output format 'TSV table'. It also mentions reproducible URLs, making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like discover_dataflows or get_structure.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: how to omit dimensions, pass multiple codes, and the default period behavior. It includes an important note about Buddhist Era years. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives.

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