ins_tempo_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the query rejection threshold, the required selection ordering, the exact return shape (dimension-label dicts plus 'Valoare'), and a legal restriction on redistributing the data. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'query' statement.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: action, selection requirements, rejection limit, return format, and legal note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler.

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 two-parameter query tool with no annotations but with an output schema, this description covers prerequisites, constraints, failure behavior, return format, and licensing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the reference to ins_tempo_matrix_dimensions completes the workflow.

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 explain parameters. It does meaningfully for selections: one option ID per dimension, in the same order as ins_tempo_matrix_dimensions()'s dimensions list. matrix_code is left implicit, though 'matrix you want' and the tool name make its role reasonably clear. Not a 5 because matrix_code is not explicitly defined.

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 action and resource: 'Pull actual official statistics data from one INS Tempo-Online matrix.' It also clarifies the return format. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ins_tempo_browse, though it clearly ties itself to ins_tempo_matrix_dimensions, so it is not a 5.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: call ins_tempo_matrix_dimensions first to get valid IDs, keep selections narrow, and prefer several narrow calls over one wide one to avoid INS's ~30,000-cell rejection limit. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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