get_indicator_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — notably nothing about pagination semantics despite limit/offset parameters, or about what the default region_code "00000" means.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, which is the right shape. The telegraphic "Cycles: 2 quarter" phrasing is ambiguous enough to cost clarity, and the space is under-used rather than over-used.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the required-parameter surface is small. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and a required 19-digit code format, the description should have covered the identifier and region parameters rather than only the cycle codes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it meaningfully decodes the cycle codes (1=month, 2=quarter, 3=calendar year, 4=fiscal year), the single most opaque parameter. However, it leaves four of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description, including the required indicator_code with its ^\d{19}$ format constraint and the region_code pattern.

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 says only "Get series data," which loosely restates the tool name while swapping the resource term from "indicator" to "series." It gives no way to tell this apart from siblings get_series_data, get_multiple_series_data, or get_series_data_by_layer, and the resource-name mismatch could actively mislead an agent choosing among them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the entire second sentence is parameter vocabulary, not usage context. With three near-identical get_* siblings in the catalog, an agent receives zero routing signal.

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