Global Economic Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses that the tool retrieves read-only data from a specific authoritative source (IMF WEO), listing the supported indicators. It implies a non-destructive, data-retrieval behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to understand its basic behavioral traits.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and source, and the second listing supported indicators. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 three parameters (all with defaults and schema descriptions), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context about the data source and indicators. It is sufficient for an AI to invoke the tool correctly, though adding information about data range or rate limits would enhance completeness.

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%, and the input schema already describes each parameter with defaults and examples. The description only summarizes this information without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 retrieves specific macroeconomic indicators from the IMF World Economic Outlook, distinguishing it from sibling tools that use different data sources (OECD, World Bank). The verb 'Get' and the detailed list of supported indicators make 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?

The description implies this tool is for obtaining global GDP and macroeconomic indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_oecd_indicators or get_world_bank_data. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of data freshness, update frequency, limitations, or error handling, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond its purpose.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key parameters without any wasted words.

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 adequately covers the inputs, it does not describe the output format or any constraints. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the structure of the returned data.

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 descriptions, but the description adds contextual detail: clarifying 'interest_rates (long-term)', 'trade_balance (current account)', and 'cpi (inflation)', and specifying that default countries are G7. This adds meaning 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 tool retrieves OECD country comparison data for G7 and major economies, and lists specific topics (interest_rates, trade_balance, cpi). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_global_gdp and get_world_bank_data.

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 use for OECD indicators on the listed topics, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get development indicators,' omitting details like read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'get.' Efficient with no fluff, though could benefit from structured details.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return value format. Despite 3 optional parameters, no explanation of defaults or example output. The tool's function is clear but surrounding context (results, limitations) is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'semicolon-separated ISO-2 codes') but largely repeats schema info without introducing new meaning for parameters.

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 World Bank development indicators for major countries, listing specific indicators. It distinguishes from siblings (get_global_gdp, get_oecd_indicators) by covering multiple indicators and countries, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives, no exclusions or context provided. The description lacks any usage directions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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