bls_cpi_breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context—just that it shows categories driving inflation—but nothing about data granularity, update frequency, or output structure. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a meaningful outcome ('Shows which categories are driving inflation'). No filler or redundancy; every word 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 simple read-only tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what it does and the kind of output (component breakdown). It doesn't mention frequency or index units, but the schema covers parameter defaults and the annotations cover safety. This is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with both start_year and end_year clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get a breakdown of Consumer Price Index by component', listing examples (food, shelter, energy, medical care, transportation). This clearly distinguishes it from BLS siblings like bls_series_data (generic series retrieval) and bls_employment_by_industry (employment focus). The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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 implies usage when an agent needs CPI component breakdowns, especially 'which categories are driving inflation'. However, it does not name any sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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