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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it implies a read-only lookup but never states that explicitly, nor does it mention rate limits, indicator-code syntax expectations, or whether unsupported indicators error or return empty. The enumeration of indicators and the "any indicator code" remark do add useful behavioral context about input flexibility.

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 resource and scope, and the indicator list is long but earns its place by helping the agent map natural-language topics to accepted inputs. The usage sentence is terse and adds value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the `years` semantics gap and the absence of any routing guidance to competing economic-data siblings (fred_series, economic_calendar) leave the definition only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and all three parameters are bare titles. The description compensates well for `indicator` (naming many accepted values plus arbitrary indicator codes) and adequately for `country`, but it never clarifies `years` — whether it means a count of years back from the latest, an end year, or a span. Two of three parameters get meaning; the third remains ambiguous.

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+resource: World Bank development data for any country, with a concrete enumeration of indicators (GDP, inflation, CO2, debt, etc.) that shows what the resource actually contains. It does not name sibling tools such as fred_series or country_info, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

"Use for country comparisons and market sizing" gives a positive usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (fred_series for US/FRED series, country_info for general country facts). The agent must infer boundaries from sibling names alone.

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