get_country_metadata

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds non-obvious interpretive caveats: country notes are context, not proof of indicator data type or trend causation, and empty metadata does not establish data quality. This is useful behavioral guidance beyond what the annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place, including the caveats about metadata interpretation.

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?

The tool has an output schema and read-only annotations, so return-value detail is not required. However, the top parameter remains unexplained, and the relationship to get_indicator_metadata is not clarified, leaving minor gaps for a tool that otherwise relies on clear context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps indicator_code and country via 'indicator-specific notes' and 'query country alone', but it gives no explanation of the top parameter, its default, or its effect on results. This is only partial parameter coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: return source, data-type, and estimation notes from the Metadata sheet. It is clear enough, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_indicator_metadata, so differentiation is more implicit than explicit.

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 provides clear guidance on parameter fallback: if no indicator-specific notes exist, query the country alone for broader notes. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_indicator_metadata or give exclusion criteria, but it gives enough context for an agent to know how to adjust its query.

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