get_static_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns table content in HTML format, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Indonesian that conveys the core purpose and key output format (HTML). It's front-loaded with the main action and includes no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the output format, which is helpful. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and usage guidance relative to siblings, making it inadequate for full understanding without additional exploration. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't explain return values, but that's acceptable per the rules.

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%, with both parameters ('domain' and 'id') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'domain' codes look like or where to find 'id' values). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Ambil detail' = 'Get details') and resource ('satu tabel statis BPS' = 'one BPS static table'), including that it returns table content in HTML format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_static_tables' (which lists tables) and 'get_csa_table' (which gets a different type of table). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'get_dynamic_data' or 'get_trade_data'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_csa_table' (for CSA tables) or 'get_dynamic_data' (for dynamic data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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