search_historical_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0), that every response includes a licence notice, and that the period parameter is informational only because HSSO does not support per-table filtering. It also notes the error/ hint fields, adding useful behavioral detail.

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-structured with a front-loaded purpose, a brief resource context, licence notice, and an Args/Returns layout. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 provides complete context for a read-only search tool: resource, input semantics, output shape, error behavior, and licensing. Since an output schema exists, the return values need not be exhaustively described, and the description covers all other relevant aspects adequately.

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?

Context reports schema description coverage at 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that topic is a keyword that all must match the title, and that period is optional and informational only. This is sufficient semantic guidance even though the nested schema actually contains detailed descriptions; the description adds compact, accessible meaning for the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource-scope statement: 'Search long-run historical time series (HSSO) by topic.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the BFS sibling tools by focusing on HSSO's static XLSX table catalogue, and it states what is returned (page and XLSX URL). No ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 clear context by explaining that this searches the HSSO catalogue of long-run 19th–20th century series, which distinguishes it from BFS-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource scope ('Historical Statistics of Switzerland', 'HSSO') makes the usage context evident.

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