evds_download_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes a 'tidy CSV file' and accepts an output_path, but omits important safety/behavioral details such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, or any error/rate-limit behaviors. This is a significant gap for a file-writing mutation 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists parameters in a clear Args block. Each line is concise and directly useful. The 'Same parameters as evds_get_data' line is slightly redundant with the subsequent parameter list, but it serves as a cross-reference and aids navigation. Overall it is well-structured and not wordy.

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 (7 parameters, file output), the description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. However, it lacks details about file overwrite semantics, directory creation, or CSV formatting specifics, which could impact real-world usage. The 'Same parameters as evds_get_data' hint is useful but not fully integrated.

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's Args list is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides brief but adequate semantics for each parameter, including default for end and allowed values for frequency, aggregation, and formula. This compensates well for the schema gap, though some formats (like start date) are not exhaustively detailed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch EVDS series and write them as a tidy CSV file (for analysis pipelines).' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like evds_get_data by emphasizing the file-writing output. This makes the tool's core function immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'for analysis pipelines' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and 'Same parameters as evds_get_data' implies it's an alternative to evds_get_data for output-to-file scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond evds_get_data, so it stops short of a 5.

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