Get a BoE IADB time series

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 discloses optional date filtering and a limit on most-recent points, and notes that any valid IADB code is accepted. However, it omits details on error handling, authentication, or rate limits, though these may be less critical for a read-only fetch.

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?

Two succinct sentences; the first front-loads the primary purpose with examples, the second adds guidance about discovery and scope. No filler or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of a read-only fetch, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main use case, optional parameters, and points to the discovery tool, though it could mention sibling tools for rate-specific data.

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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of limit by specifying 'most recent' and gives example codes, but does not add new semantic details beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch observations') and the resource ('any Bank of England IADB statistical series'), with concrete examples and a scope note ('any valid IADB code works'). This distinguishes it from sibling rate-specific tools and from list_series, which is for discovery.

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?

It explicitly directs users to list_series for discovering codes, which is an alternative. It also states that any valid IADB code works, not only catalogued ones, which frames when to use this tool broadly. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like get_current_rate or get_rate_at.

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