tuik_get_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of fetching all dimensions, full time span unless narrowed, and the max_rows preview limit. However, it doesn't mention side effects, authorization requirements, or data volume implications, leaving some gaps for a read tool. A 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient, with a clear opening sentence and a structured Args section that is necessary due to the schema's lack of descriptions. It is front-loaded and not verbose, though the Args section adds a bit of length, so a 4.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, parameters, and preview behavior, but lacks explicit usage guidelines and some behavioral details. Given the simplicity of a fetch-with-preview tool, it's adequate but not comprehensive, so a 4.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples ('TR,DF_ADNKS_T26,1.0', 'TR..2021'), providing meaning for dataflow_id, key, start, end, and max_rows. This adds significant value, earning a 5.

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 fetches observations from a TUIK SDMX dataflow and previews them in chat, specifying the resource and action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tuik_get_table_data or tuik_download_data, but the verb 'fetch' and 'preview' suggest a read operation, earning a 4.

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 implies usage for previewing data with a default row limit and full time span, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like tuik_download_data or tuik_get_table_data. It provides context ('preview in chat') but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative mentions, so a 3.

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