indicator_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add context. It explains the units of percent_change and cagr (fractions) and absolute_change (indicator units or percentage points), which is valuable behavioral info. It doesn't cover every edge case but adds meaningful detail beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and alternative; the second covers units and interpretation advice. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

With 10 parameters, a complex schema, and zero parameter explanation in the description, the tool is severely under-described. The description explains only the core operation and units, but does not address filtering options, output structure, or how the parameters interact. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly beyond the simplest case.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-specific guidance. The only implied parameter is indicator_code from the main verb, but all 9 optional parameters (top, income, region, year_start, etc.) are left undocumented, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from schema titles alone.

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 verb 'Compute' with a specific resource ('first/latest trends for one indicator') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool compare_trends for multiple indicators. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (compare_trends) and the condition for using it ('for several'), and gives practical guidance on interpreting results by inspecting actual years and change_units before ranking. This is clear and actionable.

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