ecb_money_supply

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses units (EUR millions) and the hard bounds on the limit parameter (1..24), but says nothing about frequency, seasonal adjustment, whether results are a time series or a single latest observation, or what happens when limit exceeds 24 — gaps that matter for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the resource and units come first, then parameter constraints. No filler sentences. It is terse to the point that a little more behavioral detail could be added without bloat, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

With only two optional parameters and an output schema handling the return shape, the description covers enough to call the tool correctly. However, for a data-retrieval tool with no annotations, the absence of any note on data frequency, vintage/freshness, or adjustment basis leaves real gaps for interpreting results.

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% and the schema has no enum, yet the description supplies the allowed aggregate values (M1/M2/M3), the default M3, and the limit range 1..24 with default 6 — meaning the schema alone would not provide. It stops short of clarifying whether limit counts the most recent months or something else, but it largely compensates for the empty schema.

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 the specific resource and scope: Euro-area money supply outstanding amounts, with units (EUR millions) spelled out. Siblings (bond yields, exchange rates, inflation, interest rates) cover clearly distinct resources, so the agent can route correctly without further differentiation, though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the tool for money-supply aggregates rather than rates or prices; usage is implied, not stated.

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