undata_search_wdi_series

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 that the tool returns 'matching series codes and sample values' and explains the output feeds another tool, adding value. However, it doesn't disclose response format details, pagination, result limits, or whether default year/country parameters affect results—gaps given zero annotation support.

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 with no filler. The description front-loads the core purpose and includes practical usage tips (example keywords, downstream tool reference). Not quite a 5 because it could reorganize to put the output-chaining instruction more prominently.

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 at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations—so the description bears full weight. It covers purpose, examples, and downstream chaining, which is solid. But the unexplained year/country parameters and lack of clarity about what 'sample values' means leave gaps for an agent needing complete operational understanding.

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 keyword semantics well (search term for desired topic) and notes the series_code output purpose. However, the year and country parameters are entirely unexplained in both the schema and description—the agent won't know why defaults of '2022' and 'PER' matter for a search operation, which is a meaningful 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Search for WDI series codes by keyword') and clarifies the goal is to discover available indicators. It explicitly distinguishes its role from siblings by explaining how it feeds into undata_get_wdi_data, a unique differentiator not present in other sibling definitions.

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 clear context on when to use it (to discover which indicators are available) and gives concrete example keywords. It names the downstream tool (undata_get_wdi_data) and instructs the agent to use the series_code output in the series_filter parameter, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives.

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