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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the data contained but does not describe output format, whether the country_code is required or optional, historical vs. current values, or any limitations. The agent is left uncertain about the behavior beyond the basic data contents.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and key indicators. It contains no filler, repetition, or irrelevant details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the simple schema (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the tool's content. However, it omits important context such as the optionality of the parameter and the nature of the return values (e.g., latest figures vs. time series). This leaves some gaps for an agent attempting 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 already provides full coverage of the only parameter with an explanatory description listing example ISO-3 codes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a World Bank country economic profile and lists the key indicators (GDP, inflation, trade balance, population). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_gdp, which focuses only on GDP. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', making the action slightly implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling macro-economic tools, the absence of any contextual hint or exclusion (e.g., 'use for broad country profiles, not specific metrics') leaves the agent to infer usage. The description only states what it returns, not when it is the best choice.

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