undata_get_country_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is read-only by nature ('returns the latest available value') and that it's a snapshot/overview rather than exhaustive. However, it doesn't clarify how many indicators are returned, whether the output is structured per-indicator, or any pagination/limits behavior. The period-scoping behavior (latest value in requested period) is a useful disclosure.

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 efficient: three sentences conveying purpose, behavior, and parameter format. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's no wasted text, though a brief note about the year parameter format would have been valuable within the same sentence budget.

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 there's no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It covers purpose, behavior (latest value semantics), and country-code format. Gaps remain: no description of the return structure, no year format guidance, and no relationship to sibling data-fetching tools. For a tool with 2 simple params and no output schema, it's moderately complete but leaves the agent guessing about response shape and year semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains the 'country' parameter format (ISO-3 codes with examples). However, the 'year' parameter is undocumented in both description and schema beyond a nullable string with default null. The description partially compensates by implying year scoping, but this is vague and provides no format guidance (e.g., 'YYYY' vs range).

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 what the tool does: get a comprehensive economic and social snapshot for a country using WDI. It distinguishes itself from siblings like undata_get_wdi_data by noting it returns 'the latest available value for each indicator in the requested period' for a quick overview. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like undata_compare_countries, so differentiation is partial.

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 usage context ('useful for a quick overview') but provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions ISO-3 country codes must be used, which is helpful. However, it doesn't differentiate when to prefer this over undata_get_wdi_data or undata_compare_countries, which are close siblings.

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