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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns indicator keys with units and source notes, and it covers specific data sources (World Bank, IMF, DBnomics). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and every phrase adds value: sources, example topics, return type, and downstream usage. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (keys, units, source notes) and its data coverage. It does not mention potential limits like result pagination or query behavior, but the description provides enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers the single 'query' parameter with a description that includes examples ('government debt', 'fx reserves'). The tool description reinforces this with additional example topics, but adds no fundamentally new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('StatCite's curated indicator registry'), lists example topics, and explains that it returns indicator keys usable with other tools. This clearly distinguishes it from generic search tools and establishes a specific functional niche.

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 implicit usage context by stating it returns keys 'usable with get_indicator/verify_stat' and lists example topics like inflation and debt. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, leaving the distinction to inference.

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