fetch_gfsmab_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval/read operation and mentions not to retry on failure, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data format details, error handling beyond the no-retry instruction, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 for Args and Returns. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first states the overall function, the Args section documents parameters, and the Returns section provides important behavioral guidance. There's minimal wasted text, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed.

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 adequate but incomplete context. It covers parameter semantics well and gives critical behavioral guidance about not retrying on failure. However, it lacks information about the return format (beyond 'Description of the queried data'), error types, data volume limits, or how results are structured.

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 provides essential semantic context for all 6 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'Frequency', 'Country code', 'Unit code'), provides examples for 'freq' and 'unit', and clarifies that country codes can be combined with '+'. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('compact format time series data from the GFSMAB database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the GFSMAB database source, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other data-fetching tools like fetch_bop_data or fetch_ifs_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_bop_data or fetch_ifs_data. The description mentions the GFSMAB database but doesn't explain what type of data it contains or when it's preferred over other data sources. There's no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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