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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive), and the description adds value beyond them: the upstream data sources (IMF WEO, World Bank), the inclusion of projections, and a mandatory citation obligation with the exact "cite" field format. The citation requirement is genuine operational behavior an agent must honor when composing 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and indicator coverage, followed by the citation rule. The long parenthetical citation template is dense but earns its place as an explicit output requirement.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description characterizes the returned content well (which indicators, projection inclusion, per-result cite field), which is what the agent most needs. Minor gaps remain on temporal granularity and whether the profile is a single record or a set of series.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that 'country' accepts a name, ISO3 code, or 'World'. The description's 'an economy' adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource and enumerates the returned indicators (growth, inflation, unemployment, debt, current account, GDP) plus IMF projections, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against siblings like get_series or search_series, which also surface macro data.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Latest macro indicators of an economy' – a country-level snapshot – but the description never states when to prefer this over get_series, search_series, or get_table. No exclusions or prerequisites are given either.

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