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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for indicators by keyword' without specifying the return format, search matching behavior (e.g., partial/fuzzy), or any other behavioral traits. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect assumptions about the tool's output.

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 two concise sentences, starting with the action ('Search for indicators by keyword') and then providing the use case. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage. However, it omits the structure of the response (e.g., list of matching indicators with names and IDs). Since the description hints at finding indicator IDs, it is minimally sufficient but not fully 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'query' parameter with examples ('gdp', 'population', etc.), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for indicators by keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_available_indicators or list_series, which focus on listing all indicators or series. The phrase 'find the right indicator ID' reinforces the unique purpose of locating a specific 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 provides clear usage context: 'Use when you need to find the right indicator ID.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling tools exist, a contrast would strengthen the guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear for a straightforward search scenario.

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