simel_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, indicating a safe, read-only operation with potentially open-ended data. The description adds context about the data source (INE.Stat) and dataset filters, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and data source. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the tool's role relative to siblings, but it's efficiently written with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and data source but doesn't explain return values (e.g., data format), error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'inestat_get_data'. For a data retrieval tool without an output schema, more context on expected results would be beneficial.

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 input schema (e.g., flowRef as 'Dataflow ID' with example 'ENE_TD'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining key filtering logic or period format nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 tool's purpose: 'Consulta una serie laboral de SIMEL' (queries a labor series from SIMEL) with examples like 'tasa de desocupación, ingreso medio'. It specifies the data source (INE.Stat) and dataset filters (ENE_*/ESI_*), making the verb+resource explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inestat_get_data' or 'datos_query_resource', which appear to serve similar data retrieval functions.

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 usage context by mentioning the data source (INE.Stat) and dataset types (ENE_*/ESI_*), suggesting it's for labor-related statistical series. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inestat_get_data' or 'datos_query_resource', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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