compare_countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a 'comparison table' but doesn't specify data sources (e.g., World Bank), time frames, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose sentence, followed by concise sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. No wasted words or unnecessary details are present.

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 has an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in the description), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter semantics, it lacks information on data sources, constraints, or error conditions. For a comparison tool with 2 parameters, it's minimally adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'countries' should be a list of country codes with an example (['USA', 'CHN', 'IND']), and 'indicator' is a World Bank indicator code with a default (GDP). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail all possible indicator codes or country code formats.

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: 'Compare an economic indicator across multiple countries.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('economic indicator across multiple countries'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_country_indicators' or 'query_worldbank', which might offer similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a default indicator (GDP) but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'get_country_indicators' or 'query_worldbank', nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through the description but not explicitly stated.

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