compare_countries

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions output format options (rows vs CSV) and parameter merging behavior. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description supplements without contradicting. It does not detail rate limits or other potential behaviors.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 8 parameters (1 required) and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core parameters but misses several optional ones. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. It is adequate for basic use but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It covers indicator_code, countries, country_group, and format, but not year_start, year_end, latest_only, or top. These omissions leave significant gaps for an 8-parameter 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 it returns 'One GHED indicator across countries' in tidy rows or CSV format. It specifies the core resource (GHED indicator) and action (compare across countries), distinguishing it from siblings like 'compare_country_group' or 'get_indicator_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?

It explains how to use countries vs country_group parameters, including that they can be merged, and references list_curated_country_groups for available groups. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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