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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by disclosing per-endpoint pricing, which is useful operational context. However, it does not describe response formats, latency, data freshness, error behaviors, or whether this is a read-only API. The truncated first sentence also leaves the actual output behavior unclear.

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 well-structured: an opening summary, a coverage statement, and a bulleted endpoint list with prices. The list is easy to scan and the pricing information is relevant. However, the opening sentence is cut off, and the endpoint list somewhat duplicates the action enum in the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters and 10 distinct actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the endpoint catalog and pricing but fails to explain which endpoints require which parameters (e.g., iso2 vs iso3), what kind of data each returns, or how to compose a valid request. Critical usage context is missing, leaving the agent to guess.

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 3. The schema already explains parameters like iso2 (World Bank) and iso3 (IMF). The description's endpoint list adds useful context for the action enum, but it does not explain how parameters like period, lens, focus, or regime should be used per endpoint, nor which parameters are required for specific actions. Thus it neither adds nor detracts beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as an economic intelligence API covering 190+ countries with specific data sources (World Bank, IMF, satellite nightlights, AIS shipping). It lists ten distinct endpoints, which helps differentiate this from the many other 'pulse' sibling tools. However, the first sentence is truncated ('to produce institu...') and it lacks a strong action verb, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify which endpoint to choose for a given scenario. It mentions 'Alternative economic intelligence' which implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria. The endpoint list is a catalog, not usage guidance.

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