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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns up to 25 matching indicators and includes both IDs and names. However, it does not state what happens with no matches, query length limits, or any other behavioral traits like authentication needs.

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 with no extraneous information. Every word adds value and the description is front-loaded with the key action.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, resource, result limit, and return fields. It could specify that only indicator names are searched (not IDs or other metadata), but that is already implied.

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 0% (empty property descriptions). The description adds that the query is a 'free-text search' across indicator names, which provides minimal context beyond the schema field name. No format, examples, or constraints are given.

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?

Clearly states it performs a free-text search on World Bank indicator names, returning up to 25 matching IDs and names. The verb 'search' and resource 'indicator names' are specific and distinct from siblings like 'wb_indicator' which retrieves specific indicator 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?

The description implies usage for searching indicators by name but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fred_search_series for FRED data) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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