lookup_econometrics_guidance

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds that it searches a corpus but doesn't clarify behavior when both query and method are provided or what 'curated' means. Consistent with annotations, no contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose. Concise and efficient, though slightly more detail (e.g., relationship between parameters) could fit without becoming verbose.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what to expect in the output or how parameters interact (e.g., precedence between query and method). Leaves some questions for the agent.

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?

The schema already has descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by framing 'method tag' and 'local corpus search', but omits the optional 'corpus_root' parameter. Example tags are repeated from schema, so no new meaning.

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 returns 'curated econometric guidance' by method tag or search, distinguishing it from sibling tools that run regressions. However, 'curated econometric guidance' is somewhat vague; specifying 'pre-written advice or notes' would improve clarity.

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 implies using a method tag or search query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., run_did for running regressions instead of guidance). No when-not or alternatives are given.

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