Get the CompDatum time-series

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds key behavioral details: rows are self-describing via dataType, enum values resolve to { value, name, enumType } (use enum.name), every row keeps its sedisId, and count:false enables cheap bulk paging. It also confirms the tool never writes, reinforcing the annotation.

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 efficient yet comprehensive. It front-loads the read-only nature and purpose, then systematically covers inputs, data handling, pagination, and scope. Every sentence adds unique value, and the example reinforces understanding without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (multiple parameters, enum handling, pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how to interpret returned data (dataType, enum, sedisId preservation), performance tips, and tenant scoping. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to resolve.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains where to get sedisIdIn values (from sibling tools), that parameterCode comes from fastighetsbenchmark_find_parameter and is optional, and clarifies count:false for high-volume paging. The example ties all parameters together.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pull') and names the resource ('CompDatum time-series') while explaining it is the final step of the §8 A6 flow. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying where to get the needed inputs (search_property_units, list_samlingar, etc.).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (final step of the flow), what inputs to pass (sedisIdIn, parameterCode, date range), and references alternative tools for finding those inputs. It also includes a concrete example and warns against conflating Comps, providing clear context.

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