Comparar Paises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by naming the external data source (World Bank), the return shape (year-by-country table, period average, ranking, source URL), and the indicator semantics per code. Missing only operational details such as rate limits or behavior when a country lacks data for a year.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the when-to-use trigger and examples, then parameter semantics, then return shape — no filler sentences. The indicator enumeration is long but every listed value prevents an invalid call.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still summarizes the returned table, average, ranking and source URL, and it explains the data provenance needed to trust the numbers. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this tool is absent.

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%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it enumerates valid 'indicador' values with units and accepts raw World Bank codes, and specifies 'paises' as comma-separated ISO3. 'desde'/'hasta' are only indirectly covered via 'periodo' and the annual framing, leaving their format/range implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('compara al Perú con otros países en un indicador anual del Banco Mundial') and immediately differentiates from the Peru-only data source used by sibling tools ('el BCRP solo tiene datos del Perú'). An agent can distinguish this from serie/buscar_series without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit activation condition: 'Úsenla cuando la pregunta compare países o pida contexto regional', backed by two realistic example queries. It also implies the complement (Peru-only questions go to the BCRP-based siblings), leaving little to infer.

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