data_catalogue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description gives no hint of destructive behavior. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' but the verb is sufficient for reasonable transparency.

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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, and the enumeration of supported currencies is relevant and well-placed.

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?

The tool has an output schema (as per context signals), so the description need not explain return values. The description sufficiently covers the core purpose and supported inputs, making it complete for practical use.

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 parameter 'currency' has no schema-level description or enum, but the tool description explicitly lists supported currency codes (AUD, BRL, etc.), providing the needed context for valid values. It does not elaborate on format or case sensitivity, but the list is highly informative.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available macroeconomic indicators for a currency'). It also enumerates supported currencies, making the scope unambiguous.

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 (when you need to discover available indicators for a currency) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like indicator_query or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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