build_research_panel

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that country_group resolves to ISO3 lists and filters combine via SQL AND, offering behavioral insight into parameter interaction. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and key parameter behavior without extraneous detail. It is well-structured with a clear main statement followed by a specific note on country_group.

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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks completeness by not explaining most parameters or the output format. While annotations cover safety, the description does not fully enable an agent to use the tool correctly, though the existence of an output schema mitigates return value ambiguity.

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?

With schema description coverage of 0%, the description must compensate. It only explains the country_group parameter and the filter combination logic, leaving 8 parameters (indicator_codes, countries, region, income, year_start, year_end, top, format) unaddressed. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 builds a tidy long panel for multiple GHED variables across countries and years, specifying the resource (GHED variables), action (build panel), and scope (countries/years). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_indicator_data which retrieve single indicators, or compare_countries which focus on comparisons.

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 explains how country_group works with curated codes and that filters (countries, region, income) combine via SQL AND, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when a multi-variable panel is needed versus simple indicator retrieval.

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