inestat_get_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds that it returns 'datos en formato tabular', which is useful context about output format not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and resource, the second specifies the return format. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with usage hints.

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 annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive) and scope (open world), and schema coverage is high, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and a data query tool, it should ideally explain more about the tabular format (e.g., columns, pagination) or error conditions to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., flowRef as 'Dataflow ID', key as 'Dimension key filter'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Consulta observaciones' - Query observations) and resource ('de un dataflow de INE.Stat'), and specifies the return format ('Retorna datos en formato tabular'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'inestat_get_structure' (structure vs. data) and 'inestat_list_dataflows' (list vs. query), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'simel_get_data' (similar function for different source).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'inestat_list_dataflows' (to find available dataflows first) or 'inestat_get_structure' (to understand dimensions), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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