get_money_supply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned ('outstanding amounts or annual growth rates') and provides definitions of M1/M2/M3 aggregates. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions that would be important for an agent to know.

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 starts with the core purpose, explains return options, defines key terms (M1/M2/M3), and provides concrete examples - every sentence adds value. 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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and examples of use cases. However, it lacks information about return format structure, error handling, and other behavioral aspects that would help an agent use it effectively, especially given the absence of output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining what M1/M2/M3 represent and providing example use cases, but doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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: 'Get euro area monetary aggregates (M1, M2, M3) from the ECB.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('monetary aggregates'), source ('ECB'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on money supply data rather than exchange rates, inflation, or other economic indicators.

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 clear context through examples of questions the tool answers, indicating it should be used for queries about M1/M2/M3 money supply levels or growth rates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools for related economic data.

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