get_mexico_state_timeseries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that omitting state returns all state series and that the series is 'full'. However, it does not describe output shape, units, time range, or error behavior, though the operation appears benign and read-only.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a necessary prerequisite and concrete example. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral rule (state omitted = all states) and the critical naming prerequisite. It does not describe the return series structure, but this is a simple read operation where the main invocation guidance is otherwise 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 coverage is only 50%, but the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema for the state parameter: use the exact state name from get_mexico_states, with 'Michoacán de Ocampo' as an example for accents and spelling. The freq parameter is left to its name and enum values, which is minimally sufficient.

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 verb and resource: retrieving the full remittance time series for a Mexican state, or every state when state is omitted. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_national_totals and get_mexico_municipalities by geography and aggregation level, while also pointing to get_mexico_states for naming.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for a single state, or all states when state is omitted. It also provides an explicit actionable instruction to use the exact state name from get_mexico_states, including an example. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or route to national/municipal alternatives.

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