explain_indicator_relationship

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

Annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', providing safety and scope context. The description only says 'explain', which is consistent but adds no behavioral details like whether it requires specific permissions or how it handles missing data. Annotations carry most of the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality with no wasted words. It is concise and structured optimally.

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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is minimally viable. It explains what it does but lacks usage context. With an output schema, return values don't need explanation, but some guidance on when to use it would improve 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 description coverage is 0% (parameters have no descriptions). The description mentions 'variable' but the parameter is 'indicator_code' with no explanation of what should be provided, format, or examples. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Explain whether a variable is a total, component, ratio/share, or context series.' It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('indicator relationship'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'additive_hierarchy' and 'build_additive_breakdown'.

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 the tool is for understanding how a variable relates to others, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'additive_hierarchy' or 'build_additive_breakdown'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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