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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data source (World Bank), the time dimension (recent years), and accepted country/indicator code formats, including raw World Bank codes. However, it does not describe the output shape, units, data availability lags, or error behavior, leaving some runtime behavior opaque.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope. The indicator list is long but relevant, and there is no filler or unnecessary caveat.

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 three-parameter read tool, the input behavior is well covered and the indicator/country options are enumerated. However, with no output schema, the absence of any statement about return values or units leaves a noticeable gap, and usage guidance still relies on inference.

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 baseline is met—each parameter is already described. The tool description adds a few examples and clarifies country codes (ISO or World Bank code), which is useful but largely duplicates what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence names a specific operation—retrieving a macroeconomic indicator for a country over recent years—and identifies the World Bank as the source. The phrase 'for a country' and the indicator list implicitly distinguish it from compare_countries and country_profile, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate those siblings.

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 conveys that this tool is for single-country indicator time series and points to list_indicators for the full set (in the schema), but it does not state when to prefer this tool over compare_countries or country_profile. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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