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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool returns a current snapshot rather than historical series, but it does not disclose output format, units, data source, or behavior on invalid country codes. The 'Get' wording implies read-only, but minimal detail is added.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately lists the indicators returned. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the country input, the result is a snapshot, and the exact indicators are enumerated. It could be more complete by noting what to expect if data is unavailable or by guiding toward siblings, but the core invocation is well covered.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the country parameter. The description adds the note 'Country accepts an ISO code,' which is a useful shorthand but less detailed than the schema's own 'ISO code or name' explanation and provides no additional semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get a snapshot') and clearly identifies the resource (a country's key macro indicators) with an explicit list of indicators. This differentiates it from siblings like list_indicators and us_series, though it does not explicitly contrast with country_indicator.

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 ('snapshot', 'latest available values') but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, such as country_indicator for a single indicator series or compare_countries for cross-country comparisons.

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