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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an 'economic risk score and key indicators' but does not specify what the indicators are, how the score is scaled, or whether any prerequisites (like a required country code) exist. The acronym 'RWA' is also ambiguous, leaving the data source and output format unclear.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the phrase 'World Bank RWA risk context' is somewhat redundant with 'for country risk assessment'. Overall, it is efficient but could be more specific without adding length.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns more thoroughly. It only mentions 'economic risk score and key indicators' without detailing which indicators or how the score is interpreted. The description also fails to clarify whether the country_code parameter is required, especially since the schema lists zero required parameters. This leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to use confidently.

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 has one parameter, country_code, with a clear description 'ISO-3 country code', providing 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add anything beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The optional status of the parameter (required: 0) is not addressed in the description, but the schema itself communicates the basic semantics.

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 it provides World Bank risk context with an economic risk score and key indicators for country risk assessment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_gdp or wb_country, which are more general data tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 phrase 'for country risk assessment' provides an implied usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wb_country or wb_gdp. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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