financial_inclusion_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'markdown summary with weighted proportions for each variable in the selected dimension,' indicating a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention potential side effects or auth needs, but the output format is clearly stated.

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 mostly concise, front-loading the main purpose and adding parameter details efficiently. The list of dimensions is slightly lengthy but necessary for clarity. No superfluous content, but could be slightly more 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the return format ('markdown summary with weighted proportions'). It covers all relevant aspects: source, parameters, and output, with no gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing all dimension options with explanations and providing examples for filter and by parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, enabling correct invocation.

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: 'Analyze financial inclusion from the ESRU-EMOVI 2023 inclusion module.' It provides a specific verb ('Analyze'), resource ('financial inclusion... module'), and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like weighted_stats or describe_survey which have broader or different focuses.

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 use for financial inclusion analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like weighted_stats or tabulate. It lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, relying on the user to infer from the domain-specific dimensions.

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