bfs_price_index

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context: data flows via opendata.swiss (CKAN), default user agents are rejected (403) requiring a custom UA, results are cached 24h, and IMPI returns only source links due to publication format. It also notes error handling, exceeding the annotation coverage.

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 well-organized with a short intro, bullet points for each index, a note on data flow, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides distinct value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool with one input object and an output schema, the description fully explains the two operational modes, return types, caching behavior, and error handling. Combined with the existing annotations and output schema, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for `index` and `since_year`, covering accepted values and meaning. The description's Args section largely repeats this information, adding little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage for the nested parameters is strong, a baseline of 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 immediately identifies the tool's purpose: providing Swiss price indices (Baupreisindex and IMPI) not available in STAT-TAB. It clearly distinguishes between the two index variants and explains what each returns, setting it apart from sibling tools that handle tables, metadata, or other construction statistics.

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 states a clear scope ('not carried by STAT-TAB') and distinguishes between the two index modes, including the IMPI limitation (PDF/HTML only). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the scope implies when it is appropriate.

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