list_inflation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get inflation data') without mentioning critical traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool safely and effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity. The brevity is appropriate but leads to under-specification.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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%, and the description provides no information about the 9 parameters (e.g., 'date', 'limit', 'sort'). It fails to explain what these parameters do, their expected formats, or how they affect the data retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage from schema titles alone.

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 states 'Get inflation data from the Federal Reserve' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('inflation data'), but it's vague about what specific data is retrieved (e.g., time series, metrics, or reports). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_treasury_yields' or other data-fetching tools, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_treasury_yields' for other economic data), offering no help in tool selection.

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