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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable context: ranking order (high→low) and default-to-most-recent-value behavior for year. It does not cover edge cases like missing data or rate limits, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then defaults, then indicator examples and alternatives. A bit dense but every sentence contributes; only minor redundancy with schema (e.g., 'Pass 2+ ISO country codes').

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?

Given 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers when to use, alternatives, defaults, and output ordering. Minor gaps: no mention of maximum countries or behavior when data is unavailable, but these are edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing many common indicator codes and their interpretations (e.g., NY.GDP.PCAP.CD = GDP per capita), which helps an agent choose the right indicator. It also restates the year default behavior. However, country_codes description is redundant with schema.

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 verb (compare) and resource (World Bank indicator) across multiple countries, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like country_co2_emissions and get_governance_indicators. The output ordering (ranked high→low) further clarifies its unique role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples (e.g., 'GDP per capita: US vs China vs Germany') and names alternatives with conditions ('For CO2 rankings prefer country_co2_emissions; for a single country's full governance profile prefer get_governance_indicators'). It also explains default behavior for year.

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