topics_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it is 'curated' and involves 'mapping', which provides context but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like static nature or update frequency. It is adequate 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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the key term 'Curated', and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function.

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 (no parameters, annotated, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose but could briefly mention what the output contains or how the mapping is structured, though the output schema likely covers that.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema has 100% coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly omits irrelevant 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 it's a curated index mapping user requests to variable codes. It specifies the resource (GHED topic index) and the action (mapping). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_indicators or list_variables, but the unique mapping purpose is implied.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling tools for searching and listing, the description should indicate that this tool is for translating user requests directly to codes, rather than general search.

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