undata_get_mdg_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format as organized by series code over time, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, whether year filtering defaults to the full range, or behavior for invalid country codes. Given no annotations and a read-style operation, the description provides moderate behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. The ISO-3 code guidance is immediately actionable. No filler or repetition. Could be more efficient but is reasonably compact.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the tool's scope, return structure, and country code format, but leaves start_year/end_year semantics unexplained and provides no guidance on what happens with invalid input or how the series structure is nested. Adequate for a moderate-complexity read tool but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'country' parameter format (ISO-3 codes with examples) but says nothing about start_year and end_year semantics (e.g., whether they must be valid years within 2000-2020, whether they're inclusive, or string vs int format). Since 2 of 3 parameters are completely unaddressed, the description only partially compensates.

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 gets MDG data for a country, lists content categories (poverty, education, health, gender, environment), time span (2000-2020), and output structure (series code by time). It distinguishes itself from siblings via the MDG indicator focus, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It provides clear context on what data is included and explicitly instructs on ISO-3 country codes with examples. However, it doesn't contrast this with sibling tools like undata_get_wdi_data (World Development Indicators) or undata_compare_countries, so an agent may not know when to prefer this over those alternatives.

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