tuik_get_table_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Layouts vary, so check tidy_confidence' and output columns, but it does not clearly explain what the tool returns in terms of preview vs. full data. The max_rows argument is described as 'Rows to include in the preview,' implying the result might be a preview, but the top of the description says 'Download... and convert,' leaving ambiguity about whether the full table is returned or only a preview. tidy_confidence is also not defined.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, briefly covers layout handling, points to the alternative raw-file tool, and then lists Args. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the core behavior, layout handling, and the alternative tool. It also mentions output columns and tidy_confidence. However, given the complexity of TUIK layouts and the existence of an output schema, the description could clarify whether the result is a preview or full table, and what tidy_confidence represents. It lacks some completeness but is still reasonably thorough.

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 must compensate. It does so by providing meaningful arg descriptions for all three parameters: url is the field from an istab row, output_path is an optional CSV path, and max_rows controls preview size. This adds significant value beyond the bare type information in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Download an istab Excel table and convert it to tidy long format.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tuik_download_table_file by noting that it returns a tidy transformation instead of the raw file.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to get a tidy long format of TUIK istab tables, and when to use the alternative: 'tuik_download_table_file always gets you the raw file instead.' It also mentions checking tidy_confidence due to layout variability, and references the source of the url parameter from tuik_list_tables/tuik_search_tables.

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