fetch_fsi_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 (implying read-only) and specifies 'Do not perform further analysis or retry if the query fails,' which adds important behavioral context about error handling. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data format details, or what constitutes a 'compact format.'

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). Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The Args section is particularly efficient in explaining multiple parameters concisely. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose statement more seamlessly with the parameter explanations.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains parameters well and gives behavioral guidance about error handling, but doesn't describe the return format ('compact format' is vague) or provide examples of valid indicator/country codes. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, it should do more to compensate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters: frequency format examples, country code concatenation syntax, and start/end year formats. The only gap is that 'indicator' lacks examples of valid codes, but overall the description adds substantial value beyond the bare 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: 'Retrieves compact format time series data from the FSI database based on the input parameters.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('time series data'), and source ('FSI database'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_bop_data or fetch_ifs_data, which likely retrieve different datasets from similar databases.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or explain what makes FSI data distinct from other datasets like BOP or CPI data. The only usage hint is in the Returns section about not retrying on failure, but this doesn't help with tool selection.

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