bfs_construction_investment

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: output units in 1000 CHF, the per-year series format, the leading-indicator meaning, and error/hint fields. No contradictions with 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 structured with logical sections (overview, args, returns) and every sentence contributes meaning. It is slightly wordy but not bloated, earning a high but not perfect score for conciseness.

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 covers the data source, return series, units, and error behavior. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain returns in detail, but doing so adds completeness. Overall, the tool is fully contextualized for an agent.

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?

Even though the schema has detailed descriptions, the tool description includes an Args section covering all parameters (level, code, since_year) with examples and default value. This fully compensates for the low reported schema description coverage and gives clear guidance on how each parameter should be used.

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 it returns yearly building investment and Arbeitsvorrat for a region/canton/commune, naming the specific BFS STAT-TAB data source. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like bfs_get_data or bfs_construction_activity.

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 the purpose and highlights the Arbeitsvorrat as a leading indicator, giving a clear context for when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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