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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the return window (current year plus two), the accompanying metadata (unit, WEO edition, publication date), and the important behavioral caveat that the tool relays IMF projections rather than computing its own.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger example before parameters and return details, with no filler language. Minor overlap between the opening example and the indicator list keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 read-only, open-world lookup with two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the trigger, inputs, return window and source attribution adequately; the output schema handles return-value structure, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the country format and all three indicator enum values already documented in the schema. The description restates the indicator choices ('growth, inflation or debt') but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('the IMF projects for a country') and gives a concrete example query. It also scopes the tool precisely by noting it 'reports the IMF's projections only and does not make its own forecasts', which separates it from sibling tools like get_country_indicator and compare_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?

The opening sentence gives a clear trigger condition with a realistic user utterance ('what does the IMF forecast for India's growth next year?'). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so routing between it and get_country_indicator is left to inference.

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