ins_tempo_browse

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description bears the full burden of return-behavior disclosure, and it delivers: it specifies the ~340 flattened items, their fields (code, name, parent code, nesting level), the drill-down behavior, and that leaves yield dataset matrices. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or stability of codes, but for a single-optional-parameter read navigator, the disclosure is thorough.

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 definition is longer than average but every sentence earns its place given the two-mode behavior, the absent schema param description, and the absent output schema. The purpose is front-loaded and the two modes are cleanly separated for scanability. Slightly verbose, but justified by what it needs to convey.

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?

For a navigation tool with one optional parameter, zero annotations, and zero output schema, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: return shape for both modes, field composition, nesting semantics, and how results wire into sibling tools. Nothing material is missing.

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% — the schema supplies just a bare 'code' with a default. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly what code="" returns versus code=<category>, and where the code values come from. This turns an opaque, under-documented parameter into a fully callable one; the description carries the entire semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb (browse), a precise resource (INS Tempo-Online's statistical category tree), and names the hosting institution. It distinguishes itself from its natural family by explaining that it produces codes consumed by ins_tempo_matrix_dimensions() and ins_tempo_query(), and it enumerates the domains covered. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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?

It gives clear mode-based guidance: code="" for full-tree keyword scanning (with an explicit 'good for finding a topic by keyword across the whole tree at once'), and code=<category> for drilling to children or leaf matrices. It also explains how the returned codes feed downstream tools. It does not explicitly state exclusions versus non-INS siblings (e.g., clasate_search, data_europa_search_romania), but within the relevant ins_tempo_* family the routing is explicit.

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