indicator_trend

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'compute trends', omitting details like whether the result is a summary or includes growth rates, or any side effects. Since annotations already cover safety, the description adds minimal value.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. It does not waste words, but it omits essential context, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (unseen), the description is severely incomplete. Agents lack information to effectively use the tool, such as how to filter by countries or time ranges or interpret results.

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 parameters but only implicitly mentions indicator_code. None of the 9 optional parameters (countries, year_start, etc.) are explained, leaving agents without crucial usage information.

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 computes trends for one GHED indicator. The phrase 'first/latest trends' gives a sense of time dimension, but it's somewhat vague. It distinguishes from siblings like get_indicator_data (raw data) and compare_trends (multiple indicators), but could be more 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_trends or get_indicator_data. Agents are left to infer the appropriate context, which may lead to incorrect tool selection.

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