query_fiscal_data

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful syntax details but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but beyond the basic read-only trait, behavioral disclosure is limited.

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 front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, supported operations, then concrete examples. Each sentence earns its place, and the examples are practical and immediately usable without verbose explanations.

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?

The tool has a required 'endpoint' parameter, but the description provides no guidance on valid endpoint paths, which is a notable usability gap. It also doesn't mention response format or pagination defaults beyond what the schema already provides. For a query tool with 6 parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining filter operators, sort syntax, and multi-filter formatting, which goes beyond the schema's static descriptions and clarifies usage.

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 queries the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data API with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the resource is unique among siblings, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for querying Treasury Fiscal Data) and what operations it supports. It doesn't list exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling duplicates this API, so the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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