treasury_query_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: keyless access, raw string values for amounts, null/empty handling, pagination behavior, and the truthful _meta field. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and informative, covering many aspects in a single paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and dataset list. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but remains efficient with minimal waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values. It does so: 'Returns raw rows plus a truthful `_meta` (totalAvailable = upstream total-count, offset pagination)' and explains that value/amount fields are raw strings with null/empty meaning 'no value'. It also describes error behavior for unknown columns. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is comprehensive.

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 100%, but the description adds significant extra meaning: explains that unknown columns in fields cause an upstream HTTP 400 error, provides filter syntax with examples, describes sort prefix '-' for descending, and gives pagination bounds (1..500, 1-based). Dataset enum values are explained in more detail. The description compensates completely for any ambiguity.

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 specifies it is an escape-hatch query over 7 confirmed US Treasury Fiscal Data datasets, listing them explicitly (debt_to_penny, avg_interest_rates, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it covers rates_of_exchange and debt_outstanding without a dedicated tool.

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 states 'Choose `dataset` (enum — no free path)' and describes the tool as an escape-hatch for 7 specific datasets. It implicitly guides usage by listing datasets and mentioning that it covers datasets without dedicated tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides clear differentiation.

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