get_design_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation (returns a dictionary) and states a prerequisite (eph_setup). However, it could more explicitly state that the tool is read-only and has no side effects, though the action of 'returning' implies no mutation.

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 logically structured: purpose first, then usage instructions, then parameter explanation, then conditional guidance. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value, earning a high score.

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 existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description adequately covers its role and prerequisites. It lacks error handling details (e.g., invalid tipo), but the overall guidance is sufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0% (parameter tipo has no description), but the description compensates fully by listing and explaining all valid values for tipo, including their temporal contexts. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's mere string type.

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 the tool returns the official variable dictionary for EPH microdata files, identifying its specific purpose and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing its role as a dictionary to be used before referencing variable names.

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 explicit when-to-call instructions: call eph_setup() first if needed, call before writing code referencing variables, and advises not to use variable names from memory. It also explains the two main scenarios for tipo values and instructs to ask the user if the period is unspecified.

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