undata_get_wdi_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return organization (series → year → value) which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination, data availability limits, whether invalid country codes error out, or rate-limit behavior. The description adds value but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

Three compact sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage format, and return shape. The ISO-3 examples are efficient and instantly actionable.

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?

For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and parameter hints well. However, it omits what a series code looks like, whether results are limited/paginated, year range constraints, and error handling for invalid inputs. Adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 4 undocumented parameters. It does explain the country parameter (ISO-3 codes with examples) and mentions series_filter and year range conceptually, but doesn't detail the series_filter value format or how start_year/end_year interrelate. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get World Development Indicators (WDI) data from UNdata' clearly identifies source and content type. It describes return shape (economic and social indicators for a country across years) and differentiates from siblings by focusing on the WDI dataset specifically.

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?

Provides concrete usage context including ISO-3 country code format with examples ('PER', 'USA', 'BRA', 'COL', 'CHN') and optional filtering by series codes or year range. Doesn't explicitly exclude when not to use it versus siblings like undata_query or undata_get_mdg_data, but the ISO-3 guidance is genuinely useful.

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