get_economic_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool supports date ranges (from/to), the nature of the return data (e.g., time series vs. current value), or any limitations. The one-line description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a 3-parameter input, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify that the tool can filter by date range, what the response structure might look like, or any usage contexts such as economic research versus market analysis. The agent lacks essential context for correct invocation beyond parameter names.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples of indicator names (GDP, unemployment, CPI) partially align with the 'name' parameter description, adding minor illustrative value, but it does not clarify date formatting or other parameter nuances beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and a clear resource ('economic indicator data') with concrete examples (GDP, unemployment, inflation). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_economic_calendar (calendar events) and get_technical_indicator_* (technical analysis), making the purpose 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_economic_calendar for events or get_key_metrics for company-level data. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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