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

Annotations already cover read-only safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: data coverage (>200 countries), update frequency (quarterly), and output style (5-year trend and direction). This goes beyond the annotations, though it could add details like return format or rate limits.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads use cases, then returns details, coverage, example, and source. The example is illustrative but earns its place by demonstrating output interpretation. Slightly verbose but each sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, data source, coverage, update frequency, and an example. It does not fully specify output structure, but the mention of '5-year trend and direction' gives a reasonable sense of the response.

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 schema documents country_code but only enlists indicator values without descriptions. The description adds meaning by interpreting several indicator types (e.g., ease of doing business rank, FDI inflows) and provides a concrete example, partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns World Bank development indicators') and lists the indicator types. It also contextualizes usage for country risk assessment, market evaluation, and ESG scoring, distinguishing it from sibling tools via the World Bank data focus.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when assessing country risk...') with concrete scenarios. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the complete when/when-not structure of a 5.

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