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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavior: the indicator is amplitude-adjusted, sourced from OECD Data Explorer, openly reusable with attribution, and requires no key. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., time series structure, units, historical depth) or potential limitations, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get OECD Composite Leading Indicators') and efficiently includes key details: amplitude-adjusted, example countries, source, and licensing. No unnecessary words or repetition; every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, scope, source, and authentication. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the response contains (e.g., time series of CLI values) to be fully complete; this is missing, leaving a gap.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'country' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's mention of 'OECD country (USA, DEU, JPN, GBR, etc.)' mirrors the schema's default and examples, adding no new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a precise resource ('OECD Composite Leading Indicators (CLI, amplitude-adjusted)') plus the target scope ('for an OECD country'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling economic tools like eurostat_gdp or get_gdp, which target different data providers or 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?

The description implies usage by stating it is for OECD CLI data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., Eurostat, IMF) or when not to use it. The mention of 'no key' and the source provides some practical context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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