bag_health_mcp__get_indicator_series

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). Description adds behavioral details: return structure (national/cantonal, confidence intervals, dimensions), special case for suchtschweiz (HBSC aggregates), and warning that data is aggregated population statistics only, no personal data.

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?

Description is well-structured with use_case, important_notes, and example sections, front-loading core information. While slightly verbose, every section adds meaningful guidance. Could combine notes more tightly, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, multiple data sources, output schema exists), description covers return differences between sources, important caveats (not personal data, national-only restriction for some sources), and provides a concrete example. References sibling search tool for workflow completeness.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining parameter behavior beyond schema: region behavior for national vs cantonal, indicator_id format guidance, and example usage. Gives practical context like year range filtering and language options.

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?

Description uses verb 'fetch' and resource 'health indicator's time series' with explicit data sources (Obsan, Versorgungsatlas, Sucht Schweiz). Clearly distinguishes from sibling bag_health_mcp__search_health_indicators by referencing it for getting indicator_id.

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?

Includes <use_case> and <important_notes> sections that explain when to use national vs cantonal series, that obsan/suchtschweiz are national only, and that versorgungsatlas supports canton comparisons. Provides explicit guidance on using sibling search tool first.

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