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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains that the tool ranks all cantons, takes a metric from list_metrics, and an optional order. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, stating the purpose and clarifying parameter usage without redundancy.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how parameters are used, and the source of valid metric values. It could be slightly improved by noting the output format, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond types. It explains that 'metric' is a key from list_metrics and that 'order' can be 'high' or 'low' with default 'high'. This provides essential semantics that the schema alone lacks.

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 ('Rank all cantons by a metric') and specifies the resource ('cantons'). It also explains the source for the metric parameter and the valid values for order, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to rank cantons based on a metric) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., compare_cantons or get_canton). The sibling context provides some implicit differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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