fetch_ifs_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 includes a behavioral note in the Returns section: 'Do not perform further analysis or retry if the query fails.' This adds useful context about error handling. However, it doesn't mention other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or data format specifics, leaving gaps for a tool with 5 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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with helpful details, and ends with return behavior guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be integrated more smoothly. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly and includes error-handling guidance, which is valuable. However, it lacks details on output format (beyond 'description of the queried data'), potential side effects, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving some gaps for a data retrieval tool in a family of similar tools.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'freq' with an example ('A' for annual), 'country' with format details (multiple codes with '+'), 'indicator' as a code, and 'start'/'end' as years. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and gives the agent clear guidance on how to use each parameter.

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 IFS database based on the input parameters.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('time series data'), and source ('IFS database'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_bop_data or fetch_cpis_data, which likely retrieve different types of data from the same database.

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 it mentions retrieving 'compact format time series data,' it doesn't explain what distinguishes this from other fetch_* tools (e.g., fetch_bop_data for balance of payments data). There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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