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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: source flags, missing cells, units and evidence are retained, and the series are neither real-time nor independently verified. That data-quality caveat is exactly what an agent needs before interpreting results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the indicators and scope before the limitations and the sibling reference. Dense but every clause (source flags, missing cells, units, evidence retained) earns its place; only mild run-on density keeps it from a 5.

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 structure need not be explained. The description covers scope, caveats, and a sibling alternative for a four-parameter read tool, leaving only cross-sibling selection among other indicator tools unaddressed.

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%, with enum values and per-parameter descriptions for country, indicator, limit and language, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the three indicator types but adds no format, unit or coding detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 the concrete series (Eurostat HICP annual inflation, seasonally adjusted unemployment, real GDP growth), the geography (EU/EFTA), and the time window (since 2020). It explicitly contrasts itself with list_economic_indicators, so an agent can separate it from both the list sibling and get_us_economic_indicators.

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 routes the agent to list_economic_indicators for country codes and warns that the data is 'not real-time or independently verified,' which is clear usage context. It stops short of stating when to prefer get_us_economic_indicators or get_historical_indicators, so the alternative-selection guidance is partial rather than exhaustive.

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