query_worldbank

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 the tool makes a 'raw query' and returns a 'Raw JSON response', which implies it's a read-only operation without side effects, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or API constraints. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and there's no wasted text, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter meanings adequately but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it hints at the return type ('Raw JSON response'), but more context on response structure or errors would improve 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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'country' is a country code with examples ('USA', 'all'), 'indicator' is a World Bank indicator code with an example ('NY.GDP.MKTP.CD'), and 'params' are additional query parameters. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more detail on param 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: 'Make a raw query to the World Bank API.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('World Bank API'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_census' or 'query_nasa' beyond mentioning the specific API, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_country_indicators' or 'get_population', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage independently.

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