get_country_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches data (implied read-only) and specifies default indicators, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. This is inadequate for a tool with external API dependencies.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, external data source), the description covers purpose and parameters adequately, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error cases, which are important for API-based tools, slightly reducing completeness.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'country' accepts codes or names with examples ('USA', 'CHN'), clarifies 'indicators' is optional with defaults (GDP, population, poverty), and provides semantic context not in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Get economic indicators') and resource ('for a country from the World Bank'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_worldbank' or 'get_population', which might offer overlapping 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_worldbank' or 'get_population'. The description mentions the data source (World Bank) but doesn't specify use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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