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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying data sources (World Bank, IMF DataMapper API, current vintage) and that 'each value carries its own citation.' This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and lists all indicators; the second states the value proposition and citation feature. Every word 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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description lists all returned indicators, their sources, and citation behavior, effectively describing the output. It also provides a use case, making it fully adequate for tool selection and invocation.

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 covers the single parameter at 100% with 'ISO3/ISO2 code or English name.' The description does not add syntax or format details; it only implies that the parameter selects a country for the snapshot. Baseline 3 is warranted due to complete 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 provides 'a country's headline economic picture' in one call, enumerating 11 specific indicators. It differentiates from siblings like get_indicator and get_series by being a comprehensive snapshot rather than a single data point or series.

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 gives clear context via 'Ideal for country briefs and report openers,' but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives such as get_indicator. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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