AgentGlobal

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists supported indicators and source but omits any discussion of data latency, caching, rate limits, or destructive effects. For a read tool, basic constraints or freshness are expected but missing.

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 efficiently front-load the tool's purpose and supported indicators. No extraneous content; every sentence adds value.

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 read tool without output schema, the description covers input options and data source. However, it does not describe the return format or expected behavior (e.g., error handling, pagination), leaving a gap for agents that need to parse results. Adequate but not complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'major economies' and listing indicator codes, which partially repeats schema descriptions. It does not clarify year format, output structure, or country code validation.

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 tool retrieves global GDP and macroeconomic indicators from the IMF World Economic Outlook, listing specific indicators and targeting major economies. It distinguishes from siblings like get_oecd_indicators and get_world_bank_data by specifying the distinct data source and scope.

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 the tool is for major economies and specific indicators, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a data retrieval tool, it is reasonable to assume idempotency, but the description does not confirm this or describe the response format.

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 followed by a concise list of topics. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the main parameters. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool's description adds meaningful context: explaining the topics (e.g., 'interest_rates (long-term)') and noting default G7 countries and ISO-3 format. This enhances 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves OECD country comparison data for G7 and major economies, specifying specific topics (interest_rates, trade_balance, cpi). The verb 'Get' and resource are clear, and it distinguishes from siblings (get_global_gdp, get_world_bank_data) by focusing on OECD indicators.

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 provides the tool's purpose and available topics but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_global_gdp or get_world_bank_data. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the data is cached. This lack of disclosure limits the agent's understanding of risks or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence (15 words) that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, with no extraneous information.

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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and key indicators, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or how many results to expect. Given no output schema, more completeness would help the agent understand what to do with the tool's output.

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%, with parameter descriptions already providing defaults and meaningful examples. The description's list of indicators (e.g., 'GDP, population') largely repeats the schema's indicator enum, adding no semantic value beyond what is already present.

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 tool retrieves development indicators from the World Bank for major countries, listing specific indicators like GDP, population, inflation, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its broader scope (World Bank, not just OECD or global GDP).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_global_gdp, get_oecd_indicators). No contextual hints are provided beyond mentioning 'major countries,' leaving the agent to infer usage without clear differentiation.

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