list_income_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns codes and titles, which is essential. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if any authentication is needed, or the static nature of the data. The transparency is adequate but not deep.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second provides an example of returned values. No unnecessary information.

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 is simple (no parameters, static data) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return structure. It sufficiently covers the purpose and return content. The context of use in compare_countries is provided, making it complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by stating what information is returned (codes and titles), which is not in the empty schema. No further parameter details are needed.

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's purpose: listing World Bank income-group spatial codes. It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('income-group spatial codes'), and notes the usage context ('usable in compare_countries'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_curated_country_groups.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get income group codes for use in compare_countries) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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