get_indicator_data

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral transparency by detailing how spatial filters interact, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention other behaviors like pagination (top parameter) or data freshness, but this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 with two paragraphs: a clear function statement and a focused explanation of spatial filter composition. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the main purpose. Minor improvement could further tighten the second paragraph.

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 complexity (10 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and spatial filter logic but omits details on temporal filters, pagination, and behavior of the top parameter. The output schema covers return values, but the agent still needs more behavioral context for complete usage.

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 explains spatial filter composition (country, countries, country_group, region, income) but fails to describe temporal filters (year_start, year_end), latest_only, or top. This partial coverage leaves gaps for a significant number of parameters.

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 'Fetch one GHED indicator with optional country and year filters', specifying the verb (Fetch), resource (GHED indicator), and available filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like compare_countries or indicator_trend, which may cause confusion about when to use this tool.

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 spatial filters compose (merge into single country list, AND constraints), providing some guidance on filter usage. But it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_indicators or compare_trends.

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