get_inflation_stats

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool discovers the CPI series by text (not hardcoded), returns the latest available figure, and notes the PSA lag. This provides good behavioral insight, though it could mention potential error states or rate limits.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second explains source and behavior, third adds caveat. It is compact, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but present), the description covers the core functionality, source, behavior, and caveats. For a single-parameter read tool, this is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'area' parameter. The description adds examples ('NCR', 'Region VII') and explicitly states the default behavior when null. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states it provides headline consumer-price inflation (year-on-year, all items) from PSA. It's clear what data the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_labor_stats or get_poverty_stats. However, the specificity of 'inflation' makes the purpose clear enough.

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 explains that the tool returns the most recently published month's year-on-year change and mentions the PSA publishing lag. This guides when to use it (for latest inflation figures) and sets expectations about timeliness. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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