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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: the rows carry a claim-type taxonomy (Fact / Estimate / Forecast) and a provenance guarantee that every number was read on the primary publisher's own page. It does not disclose the 200-row cap, default limit of 50, or whether results are truncated, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return shape before the query mechanics, and the field enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema. Minor waste: the 'cite the publisher and the plate' citation instruction is data-usage advice rather than tool-selection help, and there is a typo ('progrss').

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it well by listing the row fields and claim types. However, for a tool with a limit parameter, a 200 maximum, and zero required params, the absence of any statement about pagination, result caps, or what an empty result means leaves a real gap.

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 67% and the two documented parameters already carry their meanings. The description adds concrete keyword examples ("Nigeria population", "cobalt", "USGS") that teach what a 'query' can contain, but the `limit` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific resource (the verified numbers behind plates) and enumerates the exact row fields returned — country/group, indicator, unit, period, value, claim type, publisher, report, edition, link — so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_plate (plate metadata) and get_story, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent two ways to retrieve (keyword search and plate number, combinable with 'and/or'), which is usable guidance. It never states when to prefer this over get_plate or search_plates, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so routing between siblings 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.