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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it fuses indicators into one response, uses latest available data, attributes the source to World Bank Open Data, and discloses the price. This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it does not describe the exact response structure or update frequency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by specifics on indicators, source, input, and price. Every sentence adds relevant information with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides the essential operational details: what data is returned, source, input format, and cost. It lacks an explicit return-shape description, but the listed indicators effectively communicate the expected content.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter semantics by describing the country parameter as an ISO2 or ISO3 code with examples. The description adds only a redundant instruction to pass an ISO country code; the indicator list is context but does not deepen parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('ountry economic indicators'), listing the exact indicators and stating it is a bundle fused into one response. It distinguishes itself from broad tools like econ_worldbank by emphasizing one-call, consolidated output for a country.

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 'one call' implies this is the efficient single-call option for a country's key economic indicators, and 'pass an ISO country code' signals the input requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as econ_worldbank or other snapshot tools.

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