numbeo_indices_country

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free public Numbeo data, which is helpful for auth expectations. It also states the return content (aggregate data plus every city with index breakdown). However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or error behaviors, and it doesn't clarify whether the city list is always complete in a single response. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no redundancy. It leads with the core purpose, then explains the return scope, and finishes with a credential note. Every clause adds value, and it is appropriately brief.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: what is fetched (country-level index family data), what is included (aggregate plus per-city breakdown), and access requirements (none). It does not specify the output structure, but that is not required in the absence of an output schema. It could mention the exact country spelling requirement, but that is already in the schema. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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% (both country and index have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't elaborate on how to format the country name or clarify the index enum further. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Get), the resource (a Numbeo country's data for an index family), and the scope (one country's aggregate data plus every city with index breakdown). It distinguishes from city-level tools (numbeo_indices_city) by explicitly covering the whole country and from rankings tools by focusing on aggregate data, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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 usage context: it tells you this returns country-level aggregate index data with city breakdowns, so you'd use it when you need that scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like numbeo_indices_city for city-only data or numbeo_indices_rankings_by_country for rankings. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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