list_inflation

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the data source ('Federal Reserve'), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score is given for slight added value.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage or behavioral traits beyond the source, but the output schema may cover return values, preventing a lower score. However, it fails to address the high parameter count adequately.

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%, with 9 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (e.g., date filters, limit, sort), leaving semantics unclear. This is inadequate given the high parameter count and lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get inflation data from the Federal Reserve' states a general purpose but is vague about what 'inflation data' entails (e.g., specific metrics, time series, or reports). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_treasury_yields' or other data-fetching tools, leaving ambiguity about the exact resource being accessed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial data (e.g., 'list_treasury_yields', 'list_quotes'), the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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