get_inflation_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 mentions the return format ('Formatted inflation data with percentages') but lacks critical details like data source reliability, update frequency, error handling, or rate limits. For a data-fetching tool, this is insufficient 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter and return details. The structure is clear, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly into prose.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but overall gaps remain.

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 adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: it explains that 'inflation_type' specifies the data type (with examples) and 'limit' controls the number of recent data points. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't fully document all possible values or constraints (e.g., valid ranges for 'limit').

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 ('Get') and resource ('inflation data from Banxico'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_unemployment_data or get_usd_mxn_historical_data) beyond specifying the data type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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