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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: no auth required, CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing, the potential for large responses when geo_unit is omitted, and the recommendation to narrow with start/end. This exceeds the annotation coverage.

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 plus an example, front-loaded with the core function, then prerequisites, then example, then data source. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers what it does, prerequisites, example usage, data source, licensing, and a warning about large responses. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; the output schema is provided separately.

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 parameters are already documented, but the description adds concrete examples (indicator='LR.AG15T24', geo_unit='IND', start=2015, end=2022) and explains the behavior of omitting geo_unit (returns all, can be large). This enriches parameter understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch time-series values' for UNESCO indicator codes, specifying the resource (UIS indicator codes) and the scope (education, science, culture, demographic statistics). It distinguishes itself from sibling reference tools (indicator_search, geounit_list) by focusing on data retrieval, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call unesco-data.indicator_search and unesco-data.geounit_list first to confirm codes, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also gives a concrete example, and the warning about large responses when geo_unit is omitted advises on appropriate usage. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the prerequisites are strong.

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