fetch_cpis_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 does reveal that the tool returns 'compact format time series data' and includes a warning about query failures ('Do not perform further analysis or retry if the query fails'). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid parameters. The warning about query failures is helpful but incomplete.

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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and every sentence adds value. The parameter explanations are efficient yet informative. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly redundant 'based on the input parameters' in the first sentence, but overall this is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a 6-parameter data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but has significant gaps. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'compact format time series data' or what 'Description of the queried data' means. The warning about query failures is helpful but doesn't specify what constitutes failure or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to explain behavioral expectations.

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?

Given that schema description coverage is 0% (all parameters have only titles with no descriptions), the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each of the 6 parameters with examples and formatting rules (e.g., 'multiple country codes can be connected with "+"'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and gives the agent meaningful guidance on how to use each parameter correctly.

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: 'Retrieves compact format time series data from the CPIS database based on the input parameters.' This specifies the action (retrieves), resource (time series data from CPIS database), and format (compact format). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this CPIS data tool from its sibling tools (like fetch_bop_data, fetch_cdis_data, etc.), which appear to retrieve different datasets from the same system.

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 its siblings. While the name suggests it's for CPIS data (Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey), there's no explicit comparison or differentiation from tools like fetch_bop_data (Balance of Payments) or fetch_cdis_data (Coordinated Direct Investment Survey). The description also lacks information about prerequisites, error conditions, or alternative approaches.

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