get_inflation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes what data is returned (HICP inflation data) and the source (ECB/Eurostat), but lacks information about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, adds details about data formats and scope, then provides concrete usage examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the example section could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 data retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what data is available and example use cases. However, without annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema describing the return format, there are significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle potential issues.

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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'annual rate of change (%) or index level' and 'euro area or individual countries' which are already covered in the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HICP inflation data from the ECB'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_exchange_rates or get_interest_rates. It identifies this as 'the official eurozone inflation measure' and specifies what data is returned (Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices).

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 usage guidance through three concrete example questions that demonstrate when to use this tool: for current eurozone inflation rates, country-specific inflation over time, and cross-country comparisons. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle currency conversion, interest rates, or dataset searches.

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