fetch_mfs_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (implying a read-only operation) and includes a behavioral note about not performing further analysis or retry on failure, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data format specifics, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 purpose statement, Args section, and Returns section, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Returns' note about not performing analysis could be integrated more smoothly.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and return behavior. However, it lacks context about the MFS database, sibling tool relationships, and error handling details, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a data retrieval tool.

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 provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'freq' with example 'A' for annual, 'country' with multiple codes connected by '+'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively documents parameter usage, though it could benefit from more examples or constraints.

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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('compact format time series data from the MFS database'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_countries or list_indicators by focusing on data retrieval rather than metadata listing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other fetch_* tools that likely retrieve different datasets.

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 other fetch_* tools (e.g., fetch_bop_data, fetch_ifs_data). The description lacks context about the MFS database scope or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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