snb_get_balance_of_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that the return is a 'Markdown summary with JSON data', and details the category options with cube names. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits, leaving some gaps beyond annotations.

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 moderately concise but includes a redundant 'Args' section that largely duplicates the input schema. This adds unnecessary length. The structure is clear with categories and a list, but could be trimmed to essential information.

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 output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Annotations cover safety. The description provides category options with cube names, date format examples, and language hints. It is reasonably complete for a read-only tool, though it lacks details on error handling or default ranges beyond the schema.

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%, meaning the description does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters in an 'Args' block but merely repeats schema info like types and examples. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for each field, so the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema richness.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve balance-of-payments or international investment position data', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like exchange rates or balance sheets by naming the specific data type. The two categories are also clearly separated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply its domain, there is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools. The tool's specificity somewhat compensates, but the dimension requires more direct guidance.

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