fetch_cdis_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data and warns against retrying on failure, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling specifics. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation-like tool with 6 parameters.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter list, and return instruction. It's front-loaded with the main function. However, the parameter explanations could be more concise, and the 'Returns' section includes operational advice that might be better placed elsewhere, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on data format, error responses, or integration with siblings. For a data retrieval tool with multiple similar siblings, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Frequency (e.g., "A" for annual)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles. However, it doesn't provide examples for all parameters, validation rules, or format details (e.g., country code standards), leaving gaps in understanding.

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 'retrieves compact format time series data from the CDIS database based on input parameters,' which specifies the verb (retrieves), resource (CDIS database data), and format (compact time series). It distinguishes from siblings like list_countries or list_indicators by focusing on data retrieval rather than metadata listing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar fetch_* tools like fetch_bop_data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other fetch_* tools (e.g., fetch_bop_data, fetch_cpis_data). It mentions 'Do not perform further analysis or retry if the query fails,' which is a behavioral instruction but not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios favoring this tool over siblings.

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