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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'offline' largely restates structured data. The description does add genuine extra context beyond annotations: results are deterministic and cited, and omitting year returns the full annual series rather than a single point.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the usage trigger and argument guidance. No filler; every clause (deterministic, offline, cited, series-default) carries information.

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 3-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (a cited macro figure or full annual series) and how to invoke it. It does not specify units, citation format, or coverage gaps per jurisdiction, a minor but real gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 67%, and the description reinforces indicator (listing inflation | gdp_growth, matching the enum) and jurisdiction (format confirmed via CZ, DE, US). The real added value is the year semantics — omitting it yields the full annual series — which the schema does not state, only calling it an 'optional 4-digit year'.

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?

States a specific verb (look up), resource (country's authoritative macro indicator), and enumerates the exact indicator values. The qualifying phrase 'deterministic, offline, cited' sharply separates it from recalling figures from memory and from sibling tools like resolve_country_claim or list_countries.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use whenever you need a real macro figure instead of recalling one from memory.' That is strong positive guidance, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion (e.g. when to prefer resolve_country_claim or get_public_claims instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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