query_fiscal_data

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it documents the filter operator set, sort syntax, and pagination behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits or response format, but the annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds meaningful query semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important syntax details. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the resource and capabilities, the second lists operators, and the remaining lines give concrete examples. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 query tool with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the query capabilities, filter syntax, sort syntax, and pagination. It doesn't explain the return format, but there is no output schema and the tool is a generic API query wrapper, so the description's coverage of input semantics is the critical part. Minor gap: no mention of how to discover valid field names or endpoint paths beyond the endpoint parameter example.

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 documents all six parameters with examples. The description adds value by showing the filter operator syntax and multi-filter composition, which complements the schema's individual parameter examples. However, the description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for most parameters, so the 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 clearly states the tool queries the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data API and enumerates the supported operations: field selection, filtering, sorting, and pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific API source, which is unique among the many generic query tools in the sibling list.

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 concrete usage context by explaining the filter operators, sort syntax, and multi-filter format with examples. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the specificity of the Treasury API and the detailed query syntax make the intended use case clear. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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