get_pa_time_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, indicating safe, idempotent read operations. The description adds that it returns 'historical time-series data', which aligns with these annotations. However, it does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the key action and purpose. No redundant information, and it earns its place by being direct.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose but does not specify the output format (e.g., data points with timestamps). Given no output schema, additional context would be helpful. However, for a simple read operation with good parameter descriptions, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with all four parameters described adequately (e.g., default values for dates, limit). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, so the contribution is neutral. Baseline score applies.

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 it retrieves historical time-series data for a PA indicator, with the purpose of identifying trends. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pa_indicator (returns indicator definition) and list_pa_indicators (lists indicators). The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is clearly defined.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or other tools that might be more appropriate (e.g., get_pa_indicator for non-time-series data). The context is only implied but not stated.

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