get_inflation_data

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add meaningful provenance (World Bank, TÜİK-sourced) and series nature (annual average, not monthly). It does not cover return format, error behavior, or rate limits, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the source and series detail. No filler, though the source detail borders on being reference metadata rather than invocation guidance.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance, and series frequency adequately. Only the return shape is unspecified, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single 'periods' parameter, which already documents range and default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (döndürür) and resource (Türkiye TÜFE/CPI inflation data), and goes further by naming the source and indicator code (FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_macro_indicators, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for annual Turkish CPI data, and 'Yıllık ortalama seridir' usefully signals the frequency. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. get_macro_indicators) guidance.

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