get_money_supply_data

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

Without annotations, the description describes the tool as fetching data (read operation) and details the behavior of date formats per frequency. However, it does not disclose any rate limits, authentication needs, data volume, or error handling, which would be expected for full 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args section for parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 description thoroughly covers the input parameters and hints at output fields (YOY, ChainRelative, YearYOY). However, without an output schema, a more explicit description of the return structure would improve completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, it is largely adequate.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the meaning of each freq value ('month' vs 'year'), the associated series names, and the date format dependency. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates with detailed parameter explanations.

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 verb 'fetch', the resource 'money supply data (M0, M1, M2)', and the frequency options (monthly/yearly). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on company-specific financial data or valuation.

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 explains how to use the parameters (freq, start_date, end_date) and date formatting, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools have different domains, so the context is implicit, but not stated.

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