get_indicators

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 adds useful context about the source ('PGE + BOE') and the tool's read-only nature is implied by 'Returns', but it doesn't disclose potential limitations like data availability, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core function, second explains usage context, third cites sources. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains purpose and context well, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe the return format (e.g., structured data with values) to be more 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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'year' parameter filters the data and that 'indicator' is optional, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the specific action ('Returns') and resources ('key Spanish economic indicators'), listing the exact indicators (IPREM, SMI, legal interest rate, late payment interest rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on economic thresholds rather than tax brackets, deductions, or other fiscal data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('used as thresholds in tax calculations, subsidies, and legal proceedings'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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